Author: Nick Park

The first reaction I had was a laugh. When I looked at the teapot, and finally realized the joke, I had a grin on my face. What made the beginning more funny was that the “Norman door” thing was actually real, and the doors that bug me every day are actually named after Norman.

One example that reminded me was a flashlight I had back when I was in China. It was very simple, yet as a kid I spent hours and hours to figure out how to turn it on. Since I was so accustomed to thinking that flashlights always had a switch, usually buttons, I was analyzing the object so meticulously that I was almost about to dismember the whole thing. When I almost gave up, I rotated the bottom part of the flashlight (like how you rotate the cap of a water bottle) and it worked! The creative yet unpopular design of the flashlight reminded me of a similar object with low discoverabilility.

One question (and a thought) however, that came to mind while reading this was that I do agree generally that most machines and products that we utilize should have great discoverability and understanding, we should not generalize this and state the ALL products should do so. This is because some are intended for us to question its usage and that curiosity is what makes the product sell. For instance, when I first came to the old market near WTC mall, I bought a wooden box that seemed normal, but had a secret pocket inside to hide my most precious goods. Had most people known this, I am sure that the functionality of the object would have decreased immensely into the state of just being a wooden box with extra slots.

As I scrolled through the photos at the end, another funny example occurred, as I was able to relate to the author. He was in a London hotel where the sink was supposed to be pushed instead of draining automatically or with a lid to cover. That way, the sink was like a switch; once pushed, it would not drain the water, which confused the author as he was accustomed to other designs of sinks. I too had the same problem when I first faced bathroom sinks here at NYUAD, which is why when I saw his example I started laughing as well.

All in all, this was a very enjoyable text for me to read, and really had me thinking again about new categories to define how “good” or how “bad” products are really are, in this case their aim for consumers and how they are designed for these people to use them.

“The Art of Interactive Design”

From what I have understood, Chris Crawford aims to provide his definition of what ‘interaction’ is. And according to him, interaction is “A cyclic process in which two actors alternately listen, think and speak”. In my perspective, after reading his work, I have found both advantages and disadvantages to this definition of ‘interaction’.

Advantage

The best part of this reading is that Crawford acknowledges that his own definition does not represent the word itself. Not only that, Crawford also believes that definitions of any word are subjective, which is a concept I highly agree with. This is why Crawford introduced the concept of the degree of interaction, where one would measure how “interactive” an act is. The notion that Crawford is inclusive about multiple views, even those of his oppositions, is highly applaudable and shows that he has though deeply about the definition.

Moreover, what Crawford said is true; interaction does involve listening, speaking, and thinking. And this part he clearly elaborates and how each task is significant towards interaction. But there are always exceptions, which is why I will now go to disadvantages.

Disadvantages

In the readings, there are numerous cases in which Crawford attempts to dispel any sort of rebuttal against his case. Yet the problem stems from not the hidden exceptions themselves (I will explain soon) but from his definition of ‘interaction’, mainly because it is so vague. What does he mean by actors? Is the expression figuratively directed towards humans only, or do any beings with a human-like behavior (breathing, moving) count? As I write this myself, I too know that this is arduous to define, but I believe that Crawford should have at least touched on this part of his definition.

Because one example of an exception I found was how humans interact with dogs. We do not know the language of dogs, so while we can talk to them we cannot converse with them. However, when you see someone petting a dog, while it wags its tail of joy, licking its owner, would you not see that as an interaction? A similar example has been presented by Crawford himself, where he states that some view plays to be interactive because the actors on the stage set the mood and sway the people watching them, thus being interactive. But in that case I do agree with Crawford: the actors aren’t directly interacting on a simultaneous time-space where immediate feedback is possible. However, with the example of the dog, everything makes sense, yet it does not comply with Crawford’s definition. What do you think?

Rotational Lights

I wanted to tinker around with LEDs (output) and switches (input), but I craved for something more. As my curiosity grew and grew, I searched about Arduino Uno online, and found out the Servo motors. With some luck, and some help, I managed to get it working and then it got me thinking, “I should link this with the lights I have.” So I wrote a condition saying that while the angles of the Servo motor was from 10 degrees to 180 degrees, the green light would flashing, indicating a sunset or a bright day (because green is positive). And while the angle was 180 degrees to 10 degrees, the red LED would flash (indicating a sunset).

Next to it is a small second project, where the blue switch would alternatively turn on and off both the green and the red LEDs. Here is a video showing the results of my project. Enjoy!

While thinking about how to be creative for the assignment, which was to not use hands, I thought of something I learned in chemistry during my high school years. If I just need a medium to chain electricity, I could use salt water since it is a good conductor of electricity. This is because when salt is mixed into water, the water pulls apart the now positively charged sodium atom and the now negatively charged chloride atom apart. Therefore, the two ions will allow the solution to conduct electricity feasibly.

If there is one aspect I would reflect upon after the assignment, it is that I should be more careful when dealing with water because electricity and water are two potentially dangerous mixtures. Maybe next time if I have a substance that again links these two it would be much safer. Overall, this was a very fun experiment considering that it was my first ever Interactive Media assignment.