Sorry that this is getting in late. I’ve had a rough weekend filled with flu symptoms and completely spaced all of my school work. I want to give a thumbs up on the reading and especially enjoyed the author’s clearly written musings on the definition of interactivity, itself.
Questions:
1. Russel Richards stressed the “user’s position” within simulated content as an important element in interaction. He goes further to say that this position can challenge the user politically, intellectually and emotionally. I felt an affinity for this statement and believe that it strongly relates to the article on the behavioral psychology within interactivity that I linked to in an earlier blog post. The “user’s position” seems to embrace perception, role and space as themes. Implementing behavioral science in interactivity can “train” a user to adopt a role or perception through cognitive or emotional stimuli and physical action. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
2. The author briefly talks about “meaningful interface” and presents it as “the strategy of getting the user to look at the interface or object of design rather than through it”. Later we get a list of conventional interfaces including, a Waccom Tablet, the Lemur, the Joystick and the Camera. What conceptual themes do you immediately attach to these interfaces when treating them as signifiers? What other common interfaces come to mind and what conceptual themes would you attach to them?
October 12, 2009 at 10:07 pm |
Question 2:
Until recently I wouldn’t think of using these tools to create interactive pieces but the way technology has developed and the way people interact in daily life I can see these tools as a good way to intrigue viewers. These different conventional interfaces draw in people on several levels.
October 18, 2009 at 3:53 am |
Jeff, take a look at my post (posted late).
In regards to transparency, I think that controllers like joysticks and tablets are so insanely transparent that it’s impossible to be unaware of yourself as an influencer on the project at hand. The conceptual themes attached to these devices would be GAMING and CREATING. But in both, you’re navigating a pre-existing world that is both finite and narrative. Even when you have the controller in your hands you don’t really have control.
It’s almost a mockery of the idea of being an influence on a game. All the narratives and possible outcomes/outputs are already written. It’s just a matter of choice/path. Giving a gamer ‘control’ is almost like slapping them in the face, in my opinion. But maybe you have a different one?
Other interfaces that come to mind are the iPhone and the Wii controller. Touchscreen interfaces and motion-tracking interfaces. All give the user a sense of control, and all hide the reality of finite data.