Dana Sy-Ching | BBMS

I like how Dourish opens by telling us about how we talk much less about the ways in which computing is not changing. He then proceeds to educate us on the history of how computing and interaction have come to be.

This entire chapter reminds me of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (which is applicable for so many things). It seems as if we used computing because of the trade-offs between the efficiency of a computer against the human brain in certain tasks. Then, it seems, that a computer fulfills its basic function/what we need it to do. Having done so, we now ask more of it and attempt to fulfill higher-order needs, such as those that prompt us to consider interaction.

Human progress has led us to what computing is today. I love how Dourish states that interfaces allow us to generalize and therefore manipulate the abstract entities in a computing system. In this, things become more direct and streamlined; which is not a bad thing. However, I believe that to continue to push this direction for all aspects of technology may not be the best idea.

He talks about embedded systems and tangibility and adds in the social aspect of how an item participates in the world. I love this idea considering participation in the world as a form of interactivity. This made me realize how limited my thoughts on interactivity are, often focusing on just a direct exchange as an interaction. Realizing this, I figured that most interactivity presented today can be likened to a “how are you” answered typically with an “I’m good, how are you” instead of a more meaningful response. I enjoyed his example of the hospital records and the comparison between paper and digital. This shows us that digital versions are not necessarily the epitome of interaction. It may be a step forward in technology, certainly; but not necessarily in interaction.

I agree that social and tangible interaction supplement each other and that we must take both into account in the most holistic way possible. I think his discussion is on point in matters of interaction itself but that practicality and efficiency are other things that might have to be considered. For certain technological devices, there may not be a need to hone in on their interactive capabilities. However, I do believe that there are things that, due to a lack of proper implementation of interactivity, subsequently lead to less efficiency.

Crawford breaks down interactivity by likening the process to a conversation but he does not give definite examples for each possible mode, level, or intensity of interaction when applied to other things such as products. Furthermore, we are not left knowing what good interactivity is. In the end, I am left wondering what type and level of interactivity it is that we must strive for. Despite this, I agree with how he defines it and I agree that many people mislabel interaction.

Interactivity is indeed a “cyclic process.” It is a reciprocation of activity. The way Crawford seems to define the measure of good interactivity (in conversations) is by evaluating the capacity of the other person to respond well. Conversations, however, are unique to the people conversing. In design, things are often applied to a generalized set of assumptions about users, making the inclusion of depth in interactivity harder, even if interactivity can be implemented nonetheless.

When he mentions that “good interactivity design integrates form with function,” my mind wonders about simple forms of design such as elevator buttons or doors (proper doors, not Norman doors) in the way that we are prompted to interact with such objects and are given a response that lets us know about the result of such an interaction. In his categorization, these would be under ‘low interactivity’ despite the convenience these simple designs provide us with. This tells me of the importance of interactivity, low or otherwise.

When relating his logic of writing to software, I think the same conclusion can be drawn, at least with more primitive programs. Software is coded prior to a situation happening and can only respond in the ways in which it is programmed to or to simply react the way we expect it to, but as AI is getting smarter and smarter, I can’t help but wonder how this changes the interactivity of software. 

Bret Victor’s rant on interactivity honestly compels me more than breaking down interactivity to determine what deserves to be called ‘interactive’ because beyond the matter of what is and isn’t interactive lies the matter of knowing what is good or bad interactivity. 

Bret Victor talks about the tactile sense, and being one who touches pretty much everything while walking through stores, I understand his disappointment with “pictures under glass.” 

He brings up the issue of only being able to slide things and I have to agree that this is concerning. Certainly under Crawford’s definition of interactivity tapping and sliding and app and having software respond could be considered actions of ‘low interactivity.’ Taking a more sensory approach, however, the magnitude of interactivity present in apps seem less than those of an elevator button. With elevator buttons, response come through our sense of sight and touch. With apps, the response is often purely visual. 

Personally, I would go insane in a streamlined world that relies purely on sliding and tapping because as a dancer, I thrive in both sensory immersion and interactivity (as such is present in certain types of improvisation). I think ultimately the epitome of interactivity lies in good interactions with other living things like dogs or human beings. Objects just could never seem to amount to as much.

Clearly there is a distinction between good interactivity as it relates to people and good interactivity as it relates to objects. I think this line must be distinguished to avoid confusion and to allow us to adjust our expectations accordingly. Ultimately, though objects can provide many forms of interactivity that may or may not compel us, we cannot expect objects to embody human-level interactivity.