"But that's not interactive!"
chetan's comment
Crawford has a knack for stating the obvious and I could only read the first chapter before I gave up on him. He is stating things that seem obvious to me. His lack of desire to explore things that he is opposed to is somewhat questionable. He uses two pages of the book to tell us that books, movies and dancing alone are not interactive whilst talking is interactive. If he had followed this statements with a reason that I had not heard before I might have given him more time. He mentions that dancing alone is not interactive and I completely disagree with him. He contradicts himself later by saying that performance is interactive. In my eyes anyone dancing alone is performing. We are all performing at all times especially when we are dancing.
_______________________
Aaron's Comment
I think that Crawford has a bit too narrow a definition of Interactivity. I like the idea that interactivity is a variable, but Crawford seems to have made it a binary variable, is either on or off. I would argue that the refrigerator light is interactive, just not interestingly so. It does, however, show the core elements of an interactive product, a user providing input into the world and getting an almost instantaneous response. (The sort of instant response that he lauds in the second chapter as making interactivity so important). In this way, the refrigerator light is to interactive art what modern painting is to the art of painting. That is a stripped down analysis of the core elements that comprise a whole piece of art.
Kazu's comment
In “The Art of Interactive Design: A Euphonious and Illuminating Guide to Building Successful Software,” Chris Crawford quotes Socrates’ words from Plato’s dialogue “Phaedrus”: “…fuller nourishment comes from the living voice…”(Crawford).
Although every classmate read this phrase, I’d like to quote it again because it includes more thought-provoking words than the author expected. These words are not only one of the answers to why interactivity is important but also show dynamism of conversation.
The author mentions that interactivity is like alternant conversation between two persons that includes three steps: listening, thinking, and talking. You need to behave as a good partner in the conversation to make it more fruitful. He tells that the important feature is that there are two persons and they should listen to what the partner say, consider it, and talk his/her own opinion. They should respect each other to learn something from the conversation. The productive conversation is not one-way.
If the conversation partner does not consider and say anything, the conversation will not be evocative. Therefore, interactivity is essential in communication. I think this is an answer to why interactivity is important even though the author does not answer the question clearly. *1 He quotes the above Socrates’ words to suggest the answer and makes a really good job.
However, this answer causes a question. When you create interactivity by using computers, cannot you make a real interactivity because computers never consider? Cannot you help being pessimistic or waiting for the advent of Artificial Intelligence computers? I do not think that you need to be pessimistic or wait for the AI computers to achieve a real interactivity.
Taking as an action can make a fruitful result sometimes. You can remember that when talking with a friend, you realized an answer to a question that you had been thinking, by yourself suddenly. In that time, the talking is an opportunity to think. I also think that this is another important and dynamic aspect of conversation. From this perspective, the Socrates’ words “…come from the living voice…” also show the conversation dynamism. I can feel the positive possibilities in the dynamism so that I can have a hope of interactivity that I’d like to create.
Note
- 1. Actually, he mentions the answer that interactivity is new and revolutionary. But, I cannot agree this argument because I don’t think new is important.
Bibliography Crawford, Chris. The Art of Interactive Design: A Euphonious and Illuminating Guide to Building Successful Software. No Starch Press, 2003 < http://library.books24x7.com/book/id_4587/viewer.asp?bookid=4587&chunkid=0811819745 >.
Joseph - My thoughs on the paper.
Xiaochang - I found the demarcation of interactivity (I hesitate to use the term definition, considering that he frequently depicts interactivity through what it is not more than he provides clear and specific characteristics of what it is) in so far it is distinct from participation in the Crawford reading useful, if problematic. Especially in terms of web development, I've found that the two conflated with one another. Crawford insists then that just because user input - participation - is present or required, there is not necessarily interaction present. This distinction requires a rethinking of the knee-jerk response to catagorize all that requires user input as interactive, which I find extremely valuable (if a bit obvious). What interaction seems to hinge upon for Crawford is the application of "thinking," which is to say that the interactive application (software, art, what have you) cannot merely respond, but must respond "thoughtfully." What becomes problematic in this depiction is the fact "thinking" is a vague and in this case underdefined concept. The example Crawford gives with the transition to personal computing, and more responsive software is indicative of the ambiguity around this concept of "thinking" -- what personal computing and more complex "interactive" programs have allowed remains rooted in a model of user input/computer response based on ancipated user actions. That is to say, computers and software require the prediction of a finite set of types of user actions. The reactions may have increased in speed and number and complexity, but they are not inherently more "thoughtful." Or, to put it another way, they react better, but not necessarily more meaningfully (though the output may be more meaningful to the user). If we examine Crawford's example that books are not interactive because the words don't change, how then is software interactive if (with some exceptions) the code doesn't change? What is seen as an increase of interactivity is merely an increased of anticipated user behaviors. Otherwise, books too would be interactive, as a reader's sociopolitical positionality inputs additional connotations in fixed linguistic and syntactic structures, thus changing the "output," or reception, of the response. Of course, I believe computer technology to have far greater interactive potential than printed text, but I merely want to point out the problematic application of as vague a descriptor as "thinking" in defining interactivity.
_______________________________________________________________________
Joanna's comments:
For someone who hasn't had any experience with creating interactive media, I felt like I was missing the point of the article. I kept trying to figure out why he was spending so much time asking and defining what 'interactivity' meant when I thought I already knew the definition. However, as I read more I found that his definition and mine were basically the same which made me feel slightly better. It was interesting read / learn about the how important perceived interactivity is not by the person who is expecting it but by the person / thing with whom / which you want to interact.
CAROLINA///////////////////(crawford) Interactivity----def; a cyclic process in which 2 actors alternately listen , think and speak////////definitely something we should take advantage of
Interactivity depends on quality of interactors. Reaction=1person Interaction=2people
Degrees of interaction: /////////had never seen an object which had given me real feedback Listening ///////////can we have an engaging dialogue with an object which its Thinking ///////////enthropy is supposed to "be dead" as we're "alive". Speaking ////////////interaction has to related to engagement through time, though = ///////after interacting with an object, the info has to be renewed from time to time so as to be engaging. radio. tv. dead objects? ok interaction
int is btwn the dancers, not the dancers and the music
“we must incorporate the wisdom of older fields into the larger design framework of interactivity” the user interface is something modern. Its focus is narrower, with the goal of optimizing the communications between people and electronic devices. Consequently, some people prefer to refer to this as the study of human-computer interface. Its focus is more on communication than interactivity. We must incorporate the wisdom of older fields into the larger design framework of interactivity.
CAROLINA///////////////////Less is More (More or Less): Uncommon Sense and the Design of Computers.... i think that functionality and capability are two concepts that depends on the context and culture in where they are used. even though functionality had been increasing through years, there are is a few group of people that uses technology as a whole. cause people really want to have everything in one single gadget, as applinaces that can do lots of functions grouped in one object, i think people expect something that technology can't give: this is to make their life easy when life gets more complex as we use more technology, meaning that compueters had to be related to a "technocratism", this is if we are going to live with a computer (or designed high tech artefacts) we should know about it thresholds, or better, use more technology in order to have a certain level of knowledge on the field so as to live comfortably, believing that life can become easier by using it.
and this is a trip that never ends. i definitely agree with the idea of being positive and negative at the same time.
Angela:
While I agree with Crawford that the term "interactivity" is overused, I think he defines it too narrowly: "a cyclic process in which two actors alternately listen, think, and speak." First of all, I don't think it's necessarily cyclic; it's possible for an interaction to be a one time event, and secondly, it's also possible that actions occur simultaneously. Interactivity is still young - I think there's much to be explored and developed - that's why we're here, right? But nonetheless, this was a good starting read to get us thinking about scenarios and uses for interactivity.
SAI: CRAWFORD
Overall, The first two chapters of Crawford's book were interesting and I agree with most of his assertions, but most of what he writes isn't particularly illuminating. The major exception to this is his initial definition of interactivity, which gives us an excellent working model to bear in mind when engaging in any sort of interactivity design: two "actors" engaging in the three subactivities of listening, thinking and speaking. In this regard, his distinction between interactiion and reaction is a strong one. However his claim that interaction is always more engaging than reaction is not entirely true: an excellent movie can be more engaging than an uninteresting interactive object. But this is a minor point; interaction often has the edge over reaction. I also like Crawford's suggestion that interactivity is a continuous variable, not a boolean one. We do tend to think of something as either being interactive or not, when in fact the truth usually lies somewhere inbetween.
CAROLINA///////////////EMOTION&DESIGN:ATTRACTIVETHINGSWORKBETTER
aesthetics matters, that's why we fell in love with certain objects and we can't avoid buying them, even if we don't need them, just because they are appealing to our eyes. sometimes i had experienced the neccesity of having plenty of different dishes; big ones for serving food, medium size ones for having pie or bread, smaller ones for something smaller, and the smallest ones for something else. i actually have a couple of different sizes, but i found myself with not enough time to "think" in which one is more usefull to the ocation, not enough time to wash them, if i use them all when having tea, for example. even, i really use a single cup in order to avoid using more things than needed... so, my efforts on having different, well sized and designed dishes, is kind of meaningless, so i had asked myself ultimately, and also enhanced by last text, why don't some objects have the flexibility enough to be used by all the uses we can give them: say, a dish could be resizable, a spoon can become ahair brush. so as to emphasize usability rather than aesthetics, but then, what would happen to useless things, stupid things, variety, aesthetics finally!(usable but ugly) cognition and affect, in the other hand, depend one from the other, but i think it's not something easy to achieve in terms of how our mother had raised us, and i feel that is not something you can acheve naturally when you are an adult, since cognition sound easier, but takes time, and affect is something thsat depends on how we give affect back, so it is directly linked with interaction. something extremely complex to begin if we don't have the capacity to be empathic or sensitve, two features you learn how to develop from being newborns. so, producing an armonius design, would ultimately be something subjective, since it'll depend on each person's eye(development). using a pleasant design will obviously make us to have a better attitude towards life in general. i had an electric kettle which didn't have a base,but a cable attached to the whole object............ so, each time i needed to boil water, i had to unplugged the cable from it. this detail would drive me crazy every morning, so i had to buy a new one with the cable on the base, separate from the object-kettle. and believe me, my mornings are better! in this case beauty and usability were in balance.
Won
Response to “The Art of Interactive Design: A Euphonious and Illuminating Guide to Building Successful Software” by Chris Crawford
Is it (“Interactivity”) unknown?
Crawford argues that it (interactivity) is “new and revolutionary.” He urges us to grab the ‘biggest artistic opportunity.” But I do think the concept of “interactivity” is not new. Interactive technologies embedded in digital device cannot trace back to hundreds or thousands years ago. Yet, the idea, whether conscious or unconscious, of interactivity is to find its originality back in ancient ages. Take mass rituals in primitive times performed by religious medium. There was no distinct demarcation between performer (priest) and audience (folks). There were certain established rules for process. Ending was open. The rituals could go any unexpected directions reflecting folks’ feedback. So, the concept of interactivity is rooted in prehistory tradition. I think industrial revolution that resulted in mass production weakened or eradicated interactivity from our social communication. It is proper that digitalized social implications are just enabling us to regain the interactivity in our communicational ways. I support Crawford’s strict definition of interactivity, however. I was confused when I met enthusiastic argument of interactivity for ‘enforced’ interacting functions based on a few buttons in a device. Crawford’s strict assumption of “listening, thinking, and speaking” in judging interactivity should be maintained.