Joseph Sofaer
Thoughts On “The Art of Interactive Design” by Chris Crawford, Ch1 & 2
I agree that “interactivity” has tremendous potential in computers and technology but I think Crawford’s definition of interactivity could go further: If there is a fundamental difference between a strait user-interface and an interactive one I think that it lies in how well it mimics human interaction.
Crawford writes: “People claim that the computer’s true essence lies in its ability to crunch numbers, or handle mountains of information. While these are desirable features, they don’t lie at the core of what makes the computer so important to our civilization... We don’t talk about ‘the computer revolution’ until the 1980s. The revolutionary new element was interactivity.”
He describes how the early punch-card systems and workstations “destroy any sense of interactivity” and venerates the personal computer and software as harbingers of interactivity. They are simply advances in speed and ease of use of the computer’s number crunching ability. I’m sure the people who first used computers (punch-card or digital) were exhilarated by the amount of ‘interactivity’ they allowed [mathematicians breaking German and Japanese codes in WWII]. It really beat paper-pencil-abacus work.
But yes, I wouldn’t call them interactive either. The strange thing is that Crawford seems to think the Apple computer and VisiCalc? was a sudden dawn of interactivity. To me a spreadsheet program is not more interactive than a mathematical equation. It is simply a much more powerful tool. After all, it helps tremendously in balancing your checkbook and making financial predictions but it doesn’t “think” and respond to your input in an intelligent way – merely an intelligible one. As far as the personal computer goes, it was fantastic but we are now shifting back to a workstation paradigm. Soon all you will need is a browser and you email/spread sheet/word processor/photo album will be stored and run on a mainframe in Xanadu.
The majority of computer programs are still direct stimulus-response systems instead of the listen-think-respond framework of a Crawford ‘interactive’ system. The key to interactivity seems to be a creative and unpredictable ‘think’ element. As the author suggests, this is what keeps people engaged in a good conversation. It's the think element that is human.
The feedback loop Crawford presents is a good model for interactivity. He does not tell us how to make better machines but he hints that reaction time is very important. The author mentions how emails lose a lot of the subtleties of human conversation. In a human conversation time and turn taking is very important (Conversation Analysis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversation_analysis) and that is completely lost in email – as are facial and body movements too. So it’s very important to get immediate feedback from a would-be interactive machine. Notice how even if a computer is busy doing calculations it will let you know (status bar, thinking mouse icon, etc)
The most interesting point for me is that despite all of Crawford’s examples being practical/tool uses for computer technology, he immediately transfers that power to art. “Our interactive Bachs, Michelangelos, and Shakespeares are probably out there right now, flunking school. We are living in Florence during the Renaissance. Hey look! Wasn’t that da Vinci going into that restaurant?” He seems to miss what is to me the most fascinating questions: Art in the past has been one genius just ‘talking’ to everyone else. If ‘interactive’ means a conversation, does a genius piece need a genius user to be successful? Crawford’s great conversation with Alan Kay only happened when he was as well versed in the subject matter Kay was.
You can draw an incredible beauty from the works of Bach, Michelangelo, and Shakespeare without an understanding or explanation. The product of a genius of interactive art would have to be able to engage the whole world in interesting two-sided conversation.