Interaction Process surrounds us. Human interact with nature, with human, with animal, with machine. However, what is the real interaction? Not reaction, intuition or just participation. That’s the generated question from my reading of The Art of Interaction Design and A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design.
I agree with a given definition from Chris Crawford who said that “A cyclic process in which two actors alternately listen, think, and speak.”, which metaphorically represent the relationship between human being and machine/device. I draw a table below which would demonstrate the idea clearly:
Step1 Listen Input
Step2 Think Process
Step3 Speak/Reaction Output/Response
Only the three steps be finished as a circle, it can be recognized as a simply/basic interaction process.
According to these analysis, we exclude some Non-interactive Activities, such as reading book or dance which be recognized as reaction and participation representatively. For me, I was a little bit skeptic about these wording, because in some sense, we react with every creature and non-creature, and get some response in somehow, even you can’t tell it clearly. （I mean I believe Dark Matter in this world. Okay, so far!）
But, Crawford give me an explanation about the doubt. He said:”I’m concerned with interactivity that has some blood in its veins.”(P6). It is a poetry definition of interactivity. That exactly answered my question. Yes, book, dance can remind me of something, make us generate some reaction; nature, banana, tree will change anyway, no matter you interact with them or not. They just occasionally give you response in a specific time when you just try to interact with them, actually the “interaction process” between them just people’s imagination, it’s not triggled by us.
In my humble opinion, interaction is an exploration from physically and psychological layers to discover the relationship between human and machine, neural of human being and artificial intelligence, warm emotion and cold code, perception and mysterious matter.
Programming and coding as a bridge provide a platform to realize this communication. Similar as people’s conversation, if without language, we almost couldn’t communicate that much.
Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design is more like a imagination of future interactive life. It reminds me of a popular movie “Her”, which also picture a future life surrounded and embedded by technology into life. This article is more practical in application in real life. The author take interaction as a tool.a imagination of future interactive life. It reminds me of a popular movie “Her”, which also picture a future life surrounded and embedded by technology into life. This article is more practical in application in real life. The author take interaction as a tool.a imagination of future interactive life. It reminds me of a popular movie “Her”, which also picture a future life surrounded and embedded by technology into life. This article is more practical in application in real life. The author take interaction as a tool.
“A tool addresses human needs by amplifying human capabilities. ”
What’s a good tool?
“A tool converts what we can do into what we want to do. A great tool is designed to fit both sides.”
Well, I think we can change the “tool” as “interaction” instead.
Interactivity is superior to all other forms of human expression in one way: it
engages the human mind more powerfully than any other form of expression.When we truly interact with someone or something, we are truly engaged.（page 15)
Interactivity had been strangled by slow computing; personal computers unleashed viable interactivity and changed the world.（page 17）
And I’m not going to talk about technology. That’s the easy part, in a sense, because we control it. Technology can be invented; human nature is something we’re stuck with.
Hands feel things, and hands manipulate things.
Almost every object in the world offers this sort of feedback.
Pictures Under Glass is an interaction paradigm of permanent numbness. It’s a Novocaine drip to the wrist. It denies our hands what they do best. And yet, it’s the star player in every Vision Of The Future.
This work born in 1998, almost 20 years ago, by Scott Snibbe. Well, when I first time to thought about interactive or interactive art, which came to me were word like, playful, funny, entertainment, automatically. I never though about it is also a emerging new art from, seriously.
Then, I read part of digital art history, saw many art work. I think all the great interactive works discussed “Relationship”. Snibbe’s work inspired me a lot. What’s the role of an participant in this kind of interactive experience? What feeling do they have during the experience? What metaphor or meaning of the experience?