For our first Physical Computing reading, we were asked to respond to Chris Crawford’s first two chapters of his book “The Art of Interactive Design”, and then a blog post from Bret Victor titled “A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design”.
What great readings! I found myself questioning my understanding of the concept of interactivity. Crawford seems correct when he says the word can be used carelessly, and I’m sure all of us in class may have a bit of fun critiquing each other’s definitions. Most likely because the word gets thrown around so haphazardly, as Crawford points out. Since we are in the Interactive Telecommunications Program, it seems worthwhile to define our terms (or at least investigate them).
Crawford’s cranky tone initially put me off, but he reveals the comedy in it with a great pace. He is opinionated, utterly convinced that he is objectively correct, but by the end of the first chapter is willing to let someone else step in with their own opinions and is willing to accept that he may be wrong.
This can be funny in one sense; “I am 100% correct and anyone who disagrees is objectively wrong… but what do I know? ::shrug::”. It is funny to make such an abrupt change. But I think it may also point to a broader point: there may be a certain amount of potential ambiguity about what “true interactivity” is, but if we’re going to roll up our sleeves and start building we should have some solid frameworks about what we should be trying to achieve. Make some definitions so we can focus on them and not get distracted by things that lie outside of that definition. Essentially, maybe at the end of the day these things are more “subjective”, but we benefit from treating them as if they are “objective” and fixed even if we know that they aren’t. Crawford isn’t necessarily contradicting himself, I think he believes both at the same time.
Bret Victor’s post was also very enlightening. It is easy to get wowed by “visions of the future”, especially with such slick production values as the Microsoft video he linked to. To watch that video first and then have Victor pull the rug out from under us is entertaining. So much of what we think of the future isn’t fantastic enough. Exploring a little bit of the history of tech speculation was great, and exposing the through line of the Microsoft concept demo was insightful interactivity critique. The current zeitgeist is “pictures under glass”. Such a succinct way to describe it.
I read Crawford first, then Victor. Crawford emphasizes his “Listen, Think, Speak” model of interactivity. To exclude things he says aren’t interactive, he uses the example of a rock. Just because you throw a rock and it makes a sound, doesn’t mean the rock is “interactive”. While reading I was taking notes and at this point immediately wrote down “book”. Would Crawford think that a book was “interactive”?
Sure enough, he went on to talk about books, but used what I thought was a bit of a strawman argument. Essentially his argument is, “Some say reading a book makes you have emotions, which they falsely describe as author/reader interactivity”. But that wasn’t what I thought of at all. And then when I read Victor’s blog post article, there it was:
“Notice how you know where you are in the book by the distribution of weight in each hand, and the thickness of the page stacks between your fingers. Turn a page, and notice how you would know if you grabbed two pages together, by how they would slip apart when you rub them against each other.”
I was having trouble putting my feelings into words, but I think this is what I was thinking when I thought of a book being interactive. But is that “true” interaction?
Crawford’s definition certainly seems to orient itself more towards computers and digital technology when he uses the term “think” in his second step of interaction. A book doesn’t think. A rock doesn’t think. Not interactive. But what about a drum? A guitar? A piano? It is hard to say they “think”. And at the end of the day, when you use them you are more or less just hitting them in certain ways. Maybe not so different than throwing a rock.
But are we really ready to say that a piano isn’t “interactive”? A piano can “listen” to the finger motions of the user, then might be described as “thinking” via the internal physical arrangements that are carefully placed to process the intent of the fingers, and then “speak” to the user by delivering the sound outwards.
Would Crawford think I was cheating? Or are the fingers simply hitting keys, and the keys pulling hammers, and hammers hitting strings? A cascading of rocks hitting things and making noises?
With all of this in mind: the homework questions.
How would I define physical interaction? When describing the listen/think/speak system for defining interaction, Crawford mentions that “think” is being used purposefully instead of “processing”. I might propose putting it back in: listen/process/speak. This might avoid some of the tangles when thinking about “analog” interactivity. Though, like Crawford, I’m ready to hear other opinions and change my mind!
What makes for good physical interaction? While Crawford warns us against conflating reactivity with interactivity, I think that reacting/response is at least a component of interaction. High quality responses seem to make for good physical interaction. Utilizing appropriate senses, maximizing amount of appropriate information delivered, minimizing time delivering information, all strike me as “high quality” responses.
Are there works from others that you would say are good examples of digital technology that are not interactive? This question was a little tough since my head is still spinning between Crawford and Victor’s thoughts. For now, trying to stick a little bit closer to Crawford, I mght use the example of a 3D printer. It doesn’t really “interact” with the user, as much as perform clockwork motions by rote instruction.