Intro Physical Computing Fall 2005 | Readings / BuxtonCrawford

Seems like there are 2 kinds of interactivity, a loose definition and a technical definition. Crawford's totally right, that people seldom make it as far as the loose definition. But for our purposes, we should discern between these.

Loose: Crawford's article does an amazing job of stipulating a loose explanation, of what is interactivity. Which you can apply to any object capable of a "conversation".

Tech: There really is no comparing a computer with well over 1000 possible input variables (well over the "critical mass" to qualify as an ok "listener") versus a VCR with a half dozen (well below the "critical mass"). Interactive things physically are alterable. HTML alone, for instance, is actually just navigating like a train on tracks between static elements. Java or Flash can create things on the screen that transform according to your input. while a CGI script/PHP (used with HTML) behind a wiki makes your changes appear for others (beyond conversation to a 3rd party).

So a Gospel revival call and responce qualifies as "loosely interactive" theater. While a computer is really probably the only objects the average person owns that is capable of much "technical interactivity". (Maybe a toaster too?) Interactivity is just more effective neurolgically, for learning, conveying info. activity makes brains do other processes more efficiently than passive observation or being lectured to. (A really good summary of the neuro stuff is the first few pages of the book Headfirst Servlets & JSP.)
jgw234

Buxton's article, "Less is More (More or Less)" is an excellent piece. His belief that the future of design needs to be focused less on technology and engineering and more on the humanities and design arts is spot on. I do, however, think he’s unduly hard on the engineering community, which he faults for many of the limitations of everyday technology. (For the record, I'm not an engineer.)

Buxton writes that when engineers are in school, they’re not required to develop applications that have been tested by others. While this may very well help the functionality and usability in the end, in the real world, engineers don’t work in a bubble or above the corporate structure (at least not to my knowledge). They’re part of a team, and it’s the entire team that’s responsible for ensuring the functionality/usability of the end application/product.

Wholeheartedly blaming engineers for the limitation of an application’s usability is like telling a content engineer that he/she must ensure that a site’s nomenclature is clear, the flow of information logical and the overall site design graphically pleasing. This, we know, is handled by distinct (and often disparate) parties: content strategists/copywriters, IAs and art directors/designers. Yet they're all responsible as a team for the overall execution of the site....usability and otherwise.

I’m all for better human-centric/user-centric design; I just don’t think it’s the sole responsibility of the engineers involved.
ds286

I agree with Crawford about actors alternatively listening, thinking and speaking, but I think good interactivity is also about a careful balance (not necessarily split evenly) between those actions. Like the expression goes "a good teacher says little, but the students learn a lot".
fc637

I am not sure I agree with his 'God's Law'. Its hard for me to agree that the capacity of human beings is limited and doesn't increase over time. I think us humans aren't doing too bad, looking at the past hundreds of years. Its true that every field has become so specialized nowadays, that its impossible for someone to remember everything in every field just like a computer can. Still a computer can't really make use of all this information, unless programmed to. Now when Computers will start programming themselves, that will be a sight.

I completely agree with the importance of I/O as stated in the article. There definitely needs to be more variety, more options, ways to talk/react with a computer. Am sure this will come sooner than we think.
gl637

Buxton is on the right track in general, and kind of incomprehensible in his specifics. Gilad is right, the so called ""God's Law"" doesn't make sense. The whole point of learning is that humans aren't stuck in a flat line function for capabilities. We obviously rise to the world's challenges by learning, and over time by the powerful inheritance of culture. Buxton presents a linear increasing graph of functionality as a problem for people. But functionality, to me means that technology is serving us better. So it seems like increases in functionality would enhance human's capabilities. And by the way, Moore's law is certainly not a linear function, rising steadily over time. It's exponential, starting off slowly and rocketing upwards. I do get that Buxton wants to simplify technological growth, but I'm not sure that comparing bad graphs was the right way to go. For me.

Where I think Buxton really misses the important evidence though, is with the personal computer. Sure it's not perfect. Sure we'll be better served by specialized ""browsers"" at some point in the future. But look at how well Xerox PARC got it right to begin with. Humans are highly visual, linguistic and have fine manual dexterity. So of course their computer had a screen, keyboard and mouse. That's everything we're good at so those innovations stuck around. Well that's almost everything we're good at. We're also highly social. The original computer didn't help out much with social communication. With the advent of networking, email and so forth all the basic human features were essentially addressed. Well almost. Humans are bipedal. And with the transition from hardwired desktops to portable wireless laptops nearly complete, our bipedal nature is being properly addressed. It's interesting that Buxton uses the Palm Pilot as an example of a move away from keyboards. The Palm Pilot was portable and visual with a slow ability to parse penned-in characters. It was pretty good for a while because it wonderfully addressed our bipedal needs (and benefited from excellent usability). Recently it has been displaced by smartphones like Palm's highly popular Treo. The Treo adds a keyboard and networked communications to better serve our visual, linguistic, manual social and bipedal nature. So yes, we should strive to do better but no, we should never forget those factors that we've already gotten right. raf275

I think I agreed with about half of Crawford's philosophy of interactivity. I still loved the tone of his writing in the other half, though. I hope the quote, "We tend to think of interactivity as a Boolean property...like virginity," sticks in my head forever. For fun, I think I'll try and answer his review questions, just because I haven't read a book with review questions in a while (and also to beg the question whether or not his insertion of this playful element in his book makes it somehow interactive. But wait, the book's still not thinking/listening...right?)

1) Are rugs interactive? Explain in your own words why or why not. Well, I thought I might go and see if I could find someone else's words on this question. So, I asked Google, and it actually took me to a children's rug site were I saw the Interactive Rug picture from Crawford's book. If these rugs aren't considered interactive yet, then it's definitely time to bring them to the thinking, speaking, listening level. My favorite's "Creataville."

2) Come up with your own damn definition of interactivity. Oooo...this is a doozy. Let's see. Before I read Crawford's chapters, I think I thought more along the lines of Lev Manovich's separation of interactive media into two camps: open interactivity and closed interactivity. I think Crawford's definition fits into Manovich's understanding of "open interactivity": an interactive system where the user's response modifies the media object on the fly. (Closed interactivity being a system composed of a branching structure that is navigable and capable of different formulations, yet still fixed in space.) I wonder what Crawford thinks of a lot of the interactive narrative that's been put out there so far. Although they may speak and listen (if taking different routes based on the user qualifies as listening), interactive dramas don't usually achieve thinking. I still think they can be a very emotive medium though. Okay, so get to the answer, your own damn definition of interactivity: I think I need more time to think about that one.

3) Throw this book across the room. Measure the distance it traveled and the angle of impact. Draw appropriate conclusions in crayon. Ummm...I don't think my Applecare would cover this. Some crayons would be nice though.

rcc273 aka Christian

I read Buxton's essay as a call for design that is initiated and informed by need, as opposed to being instigated by pure desire to invent or compete for innovation's sake. He's all about design that is not only usable by the average human, but also design that performs a useful function. Thus our upcoming observation project with it's central aim of improving what is already there. I was interested in his use of the phrase "web browser" to describe any appliance that uses the web in some way, and also in his vision of ever more specific, single function appliances that are networked.

Re Crawford, I liked the way he put his definition of interactivity in human, conversational terms, and it set me thinking. I'm not sure if he is differentiating between a reaction and a response. A considered response (or output), that is the result of some thought (processing) is clearly considered "interactivity". But how about a reaction - something that is done without thought, or requires no "processing", just a trigger?

I tried thinking about interactivity as an exchange of energy. Not just a transformation of energy, but an exchange. So, on that basis, is a rug interactive? Well, If I wrap myself in a rug, I may start to feel warmer, as the rug stores some of the heat energy that radiates from me, and I receive some of it back. Not being sure about the energy dynamics of insulation, I'll stop there - any thoughts? Feel free to shoot me down...

If I roll around in a deep furry rug, I may feel happier afterwards, but this is just my reaction to my experience. The rug may be flattened and a little bit more worn after I rolled around in it, but this is just how the rug was affected by it's encounter with me. It's not even a reaction because the rug is taking no action of its own. My clothes may be covered in hairs from the rug, but the rug didn't think about doing this, or choose to do it. Even though both the rug and myself were both affected by our encounter, does it still not count as an interaction? If no, does this mean that we need some display of intelligence from both parties in order for an encounter to be defined as interative? Is so, how do we define intelligence...?

Re the kids rug picture. I think that's just an activity that's on a rug.

ewp221

gl637 (aka Gilad) I also wonder about Buxton's introduction of God's law into his capability/ function equation. I was wondering if he was thinking of an average capability among humans and not individuals. It seems to me that people either 1) evolve with the technology 2) adapt to the technology (which would involve the replacement of previously viable capabilities with technological capabilities) or 3) augment their bodies with technology to expand their capability to work with technology (Popular Science has a great article this month "The Future of the Body: Will we merge with machines?" --scary stuff, maybe God's law has no relevance when we start modding our own bodies.)

from Christian aka rcc273

i think what he meant by "god's law" wasn't the "flat line" of unchangeable abilities of humans. But that the mass total of all these (extremely elemental) adjustments still pretty much stays the same. like if we get tuned more into reacting to changes like when red lights become green, we may also ignore (and let atrophe a little) linguistic abilities. really there are only 24 hours in a day. every hour you use any ability, that is like excersize. no one has time to excersize everything. our abilities are in constant flux. but by "god's law", buxton seems to say the total really doesn't change.

a dwindling attention span over the decades would be hard, nearly impossible, to guage. you hear it is caused by tv, the web, every time something is new. a big factor is that people who study older literature (for example) aren't using the same mental processes as people who randomly come into contact with it. still, 18th century writing tends to be a lot more "flowery", verbose, than modern emails. and most folks just miss a lot when the sentences get longer, the point not clear immediately, there's more "mood/ambiance" than pertanent "info/content". There is a "get to the point" fashion now, which probably actually has no net effect on the amount of information ultimately conveyed. sometimes ambiance provides much more understanding than an address. sometimes the meandering associations of the speaker, tell you a lot more about where they are coming from, why their perspective.

i dunno. it's true that people often perform well beyond percieved limits (michael jordon comes to mind, for some reason) but when summing up most of us, most of the population, he hardly effects the average. i personally am so bad at basketball, i am cancelling him out in the average.

judson aka jgw234

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.

Check out the photos of this game on my blog or experience a simulation of this game in action on this site: http://www.milkandcookies.com/links/22042/

"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.

Anne ah1232

Good points all. My responses here may be a bit scattershot, so bear with me, please:

Regarding Buxton's graph of Moore's Law vs. God's Law:

I don't think Buxton needs to get specific about the actual curve of Moore's Law vs. God's Law. He's not trying to say that humans don't evolve, nor is he arguing about the details of the rate of change of processor speed. The point he was trying to make is that the rate of change of human ability is far less than that of computer speed. Neither graph is mathematically correct, of course, but the overly-simplified graphs do a great job making his point, that when technological complexity exceeds the learning capacity of the person it's intended for, frustration results. Some of you may have had direct experience of this type of frustration in the past couple weeks.

One way we deal with this kind of frustration is to develop layers of abstraction. In other words, we find ways of encapsulating the complexity of some process or device and revealing only its interface. We design computer applications so that ordinary users don't have to deal with the details of managing a database, or an array of pixels or other technically complex tasks. Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) are designed to encapsulate common programming tasks so programmers don't have to worry about the details. Programming languages and operating systems are designed to mask the assembly languages of particular processors. Assembly languages are designed to keep low-level programmers from having to memorize or look up the actual operational codes of the processor. Programming as a whole, from the opcode level up, was designed to make it possible for computer scientists to change computers without the aid of electrical engineers. (for more on this, see Danny Hillis' "The Pattern in the Stone". For a decent overview of computing from a non-technical perspective, see Poole, et. al, "History of the Internet: A Chronology, 1843 to the Present".

You can see the process of abstraction in just about any field, from Skinner's "black box" ideas in psychiatry to Stouffer's TV dinners in cooking. In any abstraction, you've got to find a way to make the interface clear and simple, or frustration results. In computer interface design, it's very easy to add functions, because there is little or no physical work to be done; it's all about intellectual work (programming). Graphic interfaces have made this a little less true, because eventually you run out of screen real estate. But as any user of MS Word knows, screen real estate doesn't keep the determined interface team from adding too many features.

What I think is important to take away from Buxton's rant about multi-purpose tools is just this: that it is very easy to go overboard with the features. It is possible to make a program or an interface too general. And that a few well-placed limits makes for a more pleasant and often more effective tool.

A for him blaming engineers for the problem, don't worry, it all balances out in a couple weeks when we read Don Norman, who blames designers for the problem.

Buxton's point about location specific computers is dating itself now, I think, and perhaps not coming across as clearly as it did when he wrote it. This is partially because of the proliferation of mobile computers in the past ten years, I think, and partially because he talks about computers and not computing. I can find a few dozen location-specific computers on the fourth floor of ITP that do their job far better than if they were to be replaced by a general purpose machine: The alarm keypad, the motion-sensitive light switches, the thermostats, the guard check-in pads, the strain sensor loggers for the facade of the building, and many more. When Buxton talks about location-specific computers, this is what I interpret him to mean. These are tasks that need neither the complexity nor the expense of a Pentium and Windows, OSX, or Linux. And they meet the needs for which they were designed beautifully.

I don't see an argument in Buxton that general purpose computers should be replaced. In fact, he says that there are many times when he prefers his Swiss Army knife. But I can see how a quick reading of the article could lead you to see it that way. The point to take home, I think, is that location and task are two very important factors that have traditionally been overlooked in computer interface design.

It's interesting to consider things like the PDA, the PSP, and the cell phone and ask, where is this pattern repeating itself? Gilad cites the Treo as the logical replacement to the Palm, stating that it lends itself to our manual nature. I couldn't disagree more. Typing on a Blackberry or cell phone is a nightmare, and typing on a Treo isn't a whole lot better, for me. In fact, the number of times I've seen use of these devices actually disrupt social interaction is huge. I'd be willing to bet that if I asked one of you to type a name, address, and phone number on a cell phone or Treo, and another of you to write it on a piece of paper, the latter would finish first just about every time. Paper and pencil are technologies that we've adapted to over time, and that we train our children to use from birth, so that their use becomes second (not first) nature. The palm stylus hasn't yet matched that for a number of reasons: first, because the ability of handwriting software is not yet up to par (though it'd getting better). Second, because the friction of the stylus across the screen comes nowhere near that of pen or pencil across paper. Part of learning to write is the muscle memory of that friction. Keyboards are another technology that we've adapted to over generations. Despite that, mobile keypads are difficult for many users, because of the shift in scale and in layout. Many of you may have already developed the manual dexterity to type as fast on a phone as you do on a keyboard, or as fast as you write, but that is a learned ability. To say that we've gotten the phone keyboard right is, I think, a bit premature. We haven't even standardized it yet. What other features of these new computers looks promising? What ones seem like mistakes?

Related question that I'm not sure of the answer: How long had the typewriter been around before the QWERTY keyboard became the industry standard? I know that it was developed to slow typists down in order to prevent key jamming, but I don't know when it was invented relative to the typewriter itself, and when it became standard. Anyone know? Henry Petroski probably wrote about it somewhere.