Hi all, pleasure “meeting” you last week. Hopefully I can meet some (all?) of you in person when I’m back north in November.

On to the tasks at hand …..

I’ve been grappling with a lot of the questions raised in the articles over the last decade, particularly in the interaction design classes I’ve been running. A lot of it comes down to “what does computational media add to human existence?” How do we jointly create meaning with a machine?

• Dourish writes of the graphical interface, and with it the ability “to exploit further areas of human ability as part of the interactive experience.” Later, in the section on tangible computing there are three models he mentions; 1) distributing tasks among devices across different locations so they can be reconfigured based on the environment 2) augmenting everyday objects with computational abilities for altering the user’s environment and 3) direct manipulation of computers through alternative interfaces (that is, something other than a mouse and keyboard). What is the fundamental difference between screen based and physical interaction? Is one ultimately more meaningful than the other? What would one excel at that the other fails?
• Dubberly p 12 “By looking beyond common notions of interactions for a more rigorous definition, we increase the possibilities open to design. And by replacing simple feedback with conversation as our primary model of interaction, we may open the world to new, richer forms of computing.”  Chris Crawford, in “The Art of Interactive Design” defines interaction as “a cyclic process in which two actors alternatively listen, think, and speak.” This would fall neatly into any of the models that were explained in the article. However, he also talks about interactivity as something that exists along a spectrum, where a refrigerator light that turns on when you open the door is something with very low interaction and an engaging and stimulating intellectual conversation as an example of something with high interaction. Could the three models of interaction (linear, self-regulating, learning) also scale along another axis that indicates intensity? Might this give us a way to engage in more meaningful interactions over time?
• Myron Kreuger is a total hero, and it’s astonishing that outside a number of specialized galleries and museums that interaction is still such a novelty in the art world. I wonder if the level of engagement that is needed in an audience for an interactive piece to be too high for these traditional institutions. When we perceive work, we need time to think about it, reflect on it. Video art in these contexts suffers from the same fate a lot of times. There’s not enough attention afforded work that demands more.