Month: February 2019

The police are coming!! But don’t fear they shall calm down with the push of a button.

Chris Crawford’s paper on defining interactivity aligns closely with my own understanding of design within this class. As I conceptualized and experimented with my code, I began to consider the contextual interaction or use of what I am creating. Crawford establishes a useful distinction in interaction, that passive or “non-conversational” designs cannot be classified in the same light as those that are a product of a conversation between a product and user. I do think that this allows us, as a society, to distinguish overused ideas of interaction from those that are truly interactive. I do, however, believe it is important to acknowledge that our conception of interaction and interactivity has come from complex and specific forms of human and technological development. Fridges, and their lights, upon their inception, would be revolutionary forms of interaction.

In today’s world, where interaction becomes more complex, and human behaviour becomes more closely intertwined with technology, the type of interaction we desire becomes that of the conversation. Fridge lights have become quite ubiquitous, and so have books, but our value of interactivity should not be hierarchical, rather an acknowledgement of the range of interaction. Much of Crawford’s argument lies in a conversation that exists within programming and processing. This is the context of our class and interactive media is useful, however, should not overshadow existing technology like doors, or create normative ideas about making all technology the same. What would doors or fridge lights look like if there were regular conversations between them and users? How much would that cost? Is that worth it?

I believe that we should let non-conversational interactions exist in our paradigm, and undergo a process of determining what type of interaction we desire from products.

 

“Is interactivity utterly subjective?” I thought this was a compelling question, especially with regards to our conversation about interactivity in class.

Crawford suggests that interactivity could possibly be one of a few “objective truths”, however also still not completely objective- as he goes on to prove how we can use personal subjectivity to measure the degrees of interactivity within an object. Here, he offers the example of Boolean properties, and how we tend to think of interactivity as a Boolean–it either exists or it doesn’t. Crawford proposes that we should instead view interactivity as a “continuous variable with relative measures”. An example of this would be to rate or measure interactivity from high to low, or strong to weak. This leaves some level of subjectivity, in that each person may rate an interaction differently on the scale.

I appreciate Crawford’s efforts in reaching a middle ground. He does not completely dismiss the objectivity nor the subjectivity of interactions, and instead constructs a means of using both concepts in our understanding of what is interactive, and what is not.

As for Crawford’s review question “come up with your own damn definition of interactivity!”– that is a question I hope to revisit and answer by the end of this course.

The Art of Interactive Design by Chris Crawford, acts as a guide for explaining the nuances of using the term interactivity, and describing which experiences can be deemed interactive. Crawford clarifies that the term interactivity is often contested and misunderstood, as people attribute it to user experiences that do not necessarily interact with the user, but rather simply provide a reaction or a response. It was interesting to see how Crawford compares interactivity to a conversation, where two or more entities engage in active dialogue; having to carefully listen and think in order to produce an adequate response  (or speak).

Moreover, establishing that successful conversation through “listening, thinking, and speaking”, is metaphorical in the sense that it does not have to exclusively occur between two humans; since these are processes associated with the human senses. Crawford illustrates that such conversations can occur between different types of system – both digital and analog. I felt like the reading acted as only the tip of the iceberg for the discussion on interactivity