http://www.annehong.com/itp/physcomp.htm

http://itpannie.blogspot.com/

Listen, think and speak are the three major components of interactivity. In computer language, listen is input, think is process, and speak is output. I was enlightened to read that a fridge can be interactive ("The Art of Interactive Design," Crawford). A fridge listens to you when you open it's door, thinks as it switches, and speaks when it lights up. I just played the most remarkable game, called "Nintendog." The console was as small as PSP and the Tetris games, the difference in the experience is the content. In "Nintendog" you could touch the screen and pet the dog, play with him (by throwing a frisbee), and if you blow into the microphone, bubbles magically appear, and your digital dog reacts to them by wagging it's tail. It is a sophisticated version of Tomagachi (those Japanese games of dinosaur eggs), except "Nintendog" is also similar to the SIMS (you can even shop for food, toys, and a dog condo for your dog). The graphics are life-like, unlike SIMS. It's interactivity was so sophisticated, that I was engaged with throwing a digital frisbee for 20 minutes. "Interactivity is superior to all other forms of human expresssion in one way: it engages the human mind more powerfully than any other form of expression" ("Why Bother With Interactivity," Crawford). This is true. I definitely want this game.

"Less is more" in fashion, but not function. When designing tools, one should think about not just the function, but the user's interactivity with it. William Buxton makes a point of analyzing the user's actions; who is using the computer; what are they doing; where are they doing it; when will they be able to use it; why are they using it; and how are they doing it. There definitely seems to be a disconnect between experience and interface. For example, when I use my laptop, the metaphor of the desktop doesn't really physically look like my desktop at home, yet my laptop desktop functions more. Maybe because the location of my computer is in the physical location it's suppose to mimic. Crawford uses examples of the "Shopsmith," which encompasses a saw, sander, drill, drill press and lathe, and a Swiss Army Knife (the portable utilitarian tool handy in every situation." These tools are multi-usage, portable, exhibit in a single location. A food processor which is located in the kitchen would look absurd in the bathroom. I believe it's important to think of certain rituals in certain spaces when designing a tool or computer. Specialization can link to it's physical space. Nevertheless, a successful tool or appliance specializes and diversifies. Crawford supports this with the outstanding design reputation of the Palm Pilot. It understands and addresses human needs. This article is why I went looking for the perfect switch. While the color of my switch (red) is not the desired color because it represents danger or intense passion, it is a "soft press" switch, a trait important to interactivity. I want to integrate tactility and emotion to my designs.

Norman Readings

I agree with the Norman readings. The most important thing that I got out of the "Designof Everyday Things (DOET)" is that design should be visible. So many times, the aesthetic of the design is prioritized over it's function. Also, design should be intuitive (like the door examples). In contrast, too much functions can hinder the usefulness of the object. I believe one possible solution to this could be that similar objects can have the same functions, so that learning becomes uniform. An example would be a cell phone interface and touch pad. Most of them are similar regardless of how old the model is or the design. In any case, one should keep the design simple. All in all, I'm glad I own the book for Intro to Industrial Design. In "Attractive Things Work Better," Norman makes a good point that people/users tend to forgive design flaws when the object is attractive. This is true, I believe for the older Apple computers (the IBooks and IMacs that came in funky colors). I have also experience a coulple of malfunctions with my Powerbook within the first 3 months. My speakers had to be replaced. I took it in, and because AppleCare also reinforced that my product would be in good working condition eventually, I wasn't upset. Partly because of the design of the Powerbook, and it's packaging. The same went for my 3rd Generation Ipod. The battery drains faster than the newer ones, but since I love the design of the older one with the red lights (keys), I will never sell it. On the other hand, I used to own one of the 1st generation G5 PowerMacs, and there was something wrong with the videocard. I had to take it back to the Apple store several times before they replaced it. I ended up selling it because I hated having to ask someone to help me lug 50 lbs. to the Apple Store everytime. I don't know if attractive things work better, but I do agree that people forgive the device or object if it is more attractive.