This post was prompted by Cris Crawford’s Chapters 1 and 2 from “The Art of Interactive Design” and Bret Victor’s “A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design” blog post.
In The Art of Interactive Design, Chris Crawford defines interactivity as “a cyclic process in which two actors alternately listen, think, and speak.“ Alternatively, he suggests that these terms can be replaced with “input, process, and output”.
To a large degree, I agree with this definition — particularly when using the alternative terms. Interaction designers establish the context in which these targeted inputs and resulting outputs are brought into relation, through a specific process. Critical to interactivity is the transformation of “information” in which the process is a constant negotiation. Both the inputs and outputs are reformed through the encounter. Designers establish this relationship: how, why and when does an input produce an output? What is conditional or generative or static in the relationship? Crawford somewhat acknowledges this idea of transformation by identifying interactivity as a cyclically process. Input, process, output, process, input, process, output, process. This reforming of inputs and outputs differentiates interaction from “responsive” communication tools.
There tends to be a prevailing uncritical assumption that all forms of digital technology are interactive. But the future presented in the Microsoft “Future Vision” video uses transformations in the mathematical sense: “move this picture here, rotate this graph, shrink this text.” The actions are completed often with a single finger, but maybe two or three (similarly acting in one gesture) if we’re lucky. The user nor the interface of the fridge, tablet, or hotel key card produce unique responses to the input or output they receive. The interface responds to gesture, but the relationship between input and output is static. These are not bad tools, they are just boring from an interaction standpoint in the same way a printing book is boring.
What encourages a good physical interaction?
- It is continuously reforming.
- It acknowledges* the physical context of the interaction.
- It utilizes the full capabilities of the human body and our range of senses.
- It negotiates prescriptiveness and flexibility.
- It is learn-able .
- It is transformative and transforming.
- It presents familiar ideas, objects, in unfamiliar contexts.
- It produces an output that would otherwise not be possible without the device.
*What is really meant by acknowledges?
Do all interactions with technology need to make life easier? In the video, all interactions between different people are modulated via technology. There’s no dialogue or conversation between people; it’s all cards and swipes and immediate answers. It’s all too easy. Strangely enough, it presents a future in which everything is quite literally at our fingertips — as if this is something new! But haven’t we always been able to know what’s in the fridge? Rather than tap the front of the fridge to reveal graphic representation of what’s inside, these days I simply open the door and look around. This is value in negotiating relationships between people, with our surroundings, in uncomfortable or unfamiliar contexts. It is how we learn. If the screens and swipes provide all forms of information immediately, how will we react when meeting someone who doesn’t intimately and immediately know our preferences, desires and next calendar appointment? We are curious beings, eager to learn about and experience the world around us — technology should not inhibit that curiosity, but celebrate and encourage it.