Briefly define “interaction” as you now understand it and post your definition to the blog. Next, return to the two projects that you researched when shaping your definition. Point to what specifically in those projects triggered your understanding of interaction, and then your definition of it. Address why one project’s approach aligns better and the other less well to that definition.
- To me interaction as I now understand is a conversation, it is a dialogue, a transmission and a tool that requires an input a process and an output. For it to be a more complex interaction, there must be an input a process and an output that can go back and forth. By the nature of it, you would need a relationship. This, for instance, can be seen in projects using the Arduino program. I remembered using the potentiometer to control the LED ‘s light intensity. I (the input) would apply a twist on the potentiometer and the LED (the output) would react to my twisting by adjusting the light intensity, which is a response and thus a conversation. I came across this art installation called IRIS. The art installation is described to be by their designers as interactive art. “According to HYBE, the Iris installation “uses the passage of ambient light, not the emission of light itself.” The interactive aspect of this exhibit comes when visitors approach and their mirror image is projected onto this pixelated makeshift canvas.” So obviously there is an input, the visitor that approaches the canvas, and there is a process and output by the canvas as the canvas mimics the contour of the visitor. This created a conversation between the LED and the LED. To further my explanation on interaction I would like to reference my experience with an art exhibition in NY. As I have mentioned in a previous post “During the summer I went to a futuristic art expo in NY. I remember being mesmerized by an automatic green screen. The point of it was to stand in the middle of a giant screen and a green screen on the other side. The result would be instant photoshop. You would stand up in a position that the screen in front of you told you and the screen would tell you where you had to move or whether you were doing it right. Once you got into the optimal position, the screen that had a camera that could track your movement. would inform you of it. Then, you would see yourself in the screen being photoshopped in crazy scenarios like riding an elephant in Tanzania or being at the top of a giant mountain. I would say that if you actually got into the optimal position that the screen instructed you to, the results looked pretty realistic. This form of art is of course interactive. because its almost as if you were having a conversation with the screen. The camera would distinguish your position, communicate to you whether you are doing it right or not, and finally give you a final result. This conversation human-machine back and forth.
Finally, describe the idea your group focused on in its design of an interactive device that fulfills the assigned criteria. Explain precisely how what you proposed to do derives from, responds to, or relates in some significant manner to your definition of the established form of interaction you identified in your research of the two projects above
- In last week’s group project, we thought of this idea of the Doglar. The Doglar itself is a collar that is in constant monitoring of the dog. For instance, if the dog catches a disease, the collar would detect it. If the collar was going through anxiety, the collar would detect it. The physical and mental state of the dog would constantly be tracked by the collar and it would transmit all this information to the smartphone of the owner of the dog. The dog owner, after being notified and being informed of pertinent ways of helping the dog, would take action to take care of the dog. This way it would be easier to understand the dog and keep him safe and sound. Additionally, we would provide a smart food dispenser so whenever the collar would detect that the dog was hungry, the food dispenser would automatically be informed of this and dispense the appropriate amount of food or water that the dog might need. Furthermore, the collar is also able to train the dog. The training would mostly consist of positive reinforcement. When the dog pies in the right place, the collar would notify the food dispenser and the dispenser would dispense a treat. On the other hand, when the dog urinated in the wrong place, the collar would vibrate causing the dog to be uncomfortable and communicate that the dog will not get a treat. The Doglar links the dog, the dispenser and the smartphone (which might create a chain reaction where the smartphone inform the owner of the dog’s situation and thus the owner reacts by taking action and taking care of the dog accordingly, in short, the doglar indirectly connect with the owner). As the doglar connects these actors, there is communication and there are many inputs and outputs and processes that make this link a conversation. A punctual example of interaction is when the Collar becomes the listener, as it tracks the dog’s status, but it also becomes a speaker when it vibrates and teaches the dog where to urinate.
References:
https://www.trendhunter.com/trends/iris-by-hybe