What do you consider to be the characteristics of a strongly interactive system?

After reading, I feel like the main and most important part of a strongly interactive system is thinking. As explained, there’re three steps of interaction, and while many objects can listen (register the action, like fridge opening) and speak (performing an action, like book telling a story), very few can actually think – analyze the action and then perform in response in accordance with it. Like in conversation, answer to one’s words can’t always be the same whatever someone says, the answer of a strongly interactive system should differ depending on the interaction made with it.

I stress the value of thinking in an interactive system because, as it was said in the writing, participation and reaction are not considered to be the same as interaction. Yes, the lamp turns on when you press the button – it reacts to the action, and yes, you participate in a dance with some music, but you don’t interact with them because 1) the interaction with them doesn’t consider any thinking, 2) no matter how you press the button or dance, music and lamp always will be the same and have the same response to your actions.

 

What ideas do you have for improving the degree of user interaction in your p5 sketches?

I understood that right now my sketches are not really interactive since they also don’t really consider thinking of the user. Clicks and mouse movement are probably not the best interactions since it’s very low-level interaction with really poor user action amalysis. I understood that in order to come up with something more interactive I have to consider what the user might think about doing with my sketches. For instance, if they see some object on the screen, what possibly they might do with it? If I come up with various answers, I would be able to make different responses of my system in accordance with user’s actions. This way, the system will adapt “thinking” that is so important when thinking about interactivity.

“Colors, like features, follow the changes of the emotions.” — Pablo Picasso

Concept:

Recently, I watched Disney’s Pocahontas, and one of the songs that has been become quite a hit was “Colors of the Wind”. It is a beautiful and emotional song with a message about living in a more interconnected, diverse and colorful world. Which is what I wanted to represent with the use of colorful circles, moving around as if they were in the wind. And it is quite mesmerizing to look at the different circles in a wide range of color. To me, it gives a nice representation of how we look at ourselves in society, where we’re all different and unique, yet living side by side, we creating this enchanting community of diversity. Take a peak below, by clicking on it with your mouse (or tap if you’re on mobile).

How it’s made:

So for this assignment, I utilized OOP and arrays to generate the circles. I created a class where I defined the main variables within the constructor function, which is integral to the class. Then for the movement of the circles, I made a seperate function which manages the movement by increasing the direction vector of the circles by a random amount. Then I made a function to actually display the circles.

Now the way I went with generating multiple circles was using an array, and then a for loop to just append circles to it. And finally, another for loop so the balls are displayed and have movement. Now for the color factor, I went for a simple effect where if you click the canvas, the colors of the circles rapidly change. This did in turn create a sort of LSD effect so if you’re sensitive to epilepsy, I would not advise you holding down the mouse button.

Of course, there are probably much more efficient ways to create this same effect, but honestly, I just randomly stumbled upon it. I was just playing around with the size and color variables and in the end, this is what I produced. It looked quite satisfying so I decided to go along with it.

A highlighted bit of code I’m proud of:

This bit of code I’m quite proud of as I struggled with how to make the circles not leave the boundaries of the canvas. It was quite difficult intially as I just assumed that it was as simple as defining  specific parameters and that’s it. But then I thought more about it and wanted to make it dynamic, instead of static.

So I tried and eventually was able to make it so the circles sort of bounce off the walls and go back towards the center of the canvas. In this sense, they still won’t disappear off the canvas, and won’t be hindered in the velocity.

move() { //This function gives the balls vectors of directions
    this.x += this.dx;
    this.y += this.dy;

  //The if statements constrain the balls so they don't go off the canvas
    if (this.x < this.d / 2 || this.x > width - this.d / 2) {
      this.dx *= -1; 
    }
    if (this.y < this.d / 2 || this.y > height - this.d / 2) {
      this.dy *= -1; 
    }
  }

Reflection:

This was quite a fun project to make. It was interesting experimenting with classes and I can see why they are quite fundamental in not just efficinizing your code but also dynamically creating new objects and changing their variables. It is insanely useful to shorten the code used and to add as I would like to refer to them as characteristics to objects, through the use of functions.

And I think the artwork, while simple in nature, does have a good amount of deep meaning. If you click the mouse, you get a different color for each and every circle. And that to me just is a beautiful way to see the world, where each and every one of us are a different color, come in different shapes and sizes and go in random directions. When put together, we create a beautiful and colorful muse, a nice representation of our world.

After reading this, I realized how important immediate and meaningful feedback is. Because a strong interactive system is not just one to a user’s input but one that feels like there’s an actual back and forth interaction between the user and the system. When the user takes an action the system has to respond right away so that it makes it clear what caused that response. I think that really gives a user a sense of control instead of confusion that might sometimes appear. Another concept that’s really important is agency because strong interactivity happens when users think that their choices actually matter. For example, if the system always reacts in the same repetitive way no matter what user inputs, it can feel very boring. Interactions become more engaging when different inputs lead to different outcomes and users can get the freedom to explore them and experiment. 

Now when I look at my own p5 works, I realize that the level could definitely be improved. As for now a lot of the interaction are basically rely on simple key presses. In my future work I’d like to use things like mouse movement, speed or direction to make visuals more dynamic and engaging. That’d definitely make my works feel more responsive to the user’s actions.  I’m also interested in trying state-based interactions, where the sketch remembers what the user did before and changes gradually instead of instantly resetting. Another thing I want to try is adding constraints or small goals, so the user feels like they’re interacting with a system rather than just watching an effect on the screen. Overall, my goal is for future p5 sketches to feel less like technical demonstrations and more like interactive experiences where the user’s actions shape the output.

Concept: This sketch depicts a group of ladybugs crawling across the screen, represented by emojis. Each ladybug is an object with its own position and movement, and randomness makes the composition generative and slightly different every time it runs. I chose the concept to be simple, focusing more on the motion and repetition of visuals.

Code I’m proud of: I am proud of using the “move” and “display” functions inside an array that stores the ladybugs:

for (let i = 0; i < ladybugs.length; i++) {
  ladybugs[i].move();
  ladybugs[i].display();

Code:

 Reflection: I feel like it is getting more and more complicated with each lesson, but I am trying my best to include the required functions into our homework codes. That is why this week’s sketch feels very basic to me.

The Subjectivity of Linguistics and Definitions

It is a point that I most strongly resonate with, and one that I may struggle to articulate so fully as that which was present in Crawford’s reading, that I begin by producing a quote from said reading:

“… I take a more easygoing view of definitions. Any idea worthy of my attention is probably too big and too complicated to be reduced to some schoolmarmish formula.” (Crawford, 5)

As is to Crawford, to me linguistics is about a message. And it is so that the delivery of a message is as much an artform as is an artform about the delivery of a message. Oftentimes, I find definitions an easy way to brush over more nuanced topics.

As for interactive systems, I strive not to pen down a concrete definition, but to explore them based on their attributes and depth of interaction. Let us take a simple interactive system: a classic slot machine in the Ol’ Flamingo. Its got a lever for players to pull, makes cool sounds when you win, its got flashy lights and a degree of manual work in pulling the lever. It builds anticipation in the spinning of the slots. On the plus side (a win for the casino), the casino serves you drinks as you gamble away.

In essence, all five of your senses are deeply entrenched in this interactive system. And the drinks you’ve been served are likely to keep your brain engaged elsewhere from the fact that your credit rating isn’t looking awfully good at the moment. If I were to rate it on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the strongest interactive system, it would most certainly be a good 8, for its pretty holistic in its nature, however cruel and money-depleting that nature may so be.

As did Crawford elaborate on interactive systems: “interaction: a cydic process in which two actors alternately listen, think, and speak”

In essence, the formerly described slot machine engages all of ones senses, it will never be a ten for one simple reason, that it lacks to spur intelligence. It does not really heighten one’s intellectual curiosity or thoughts. Its a repetitive action with the only randomness being how much your bank account depletes after every pull.

This is that which distinguishes between a good interactive system and a strong(er/est) interactive system. Id est a system that strives to not only address our superficial senses and thoughts, though in addition delves deep into a more nuanced realm of human thought and complex emotions.

It is that which is also present within Crawford’s formerly quoted definition.

I believe a p5 sketch could be honed but only so to an extent, for while we may invoke a multitude of senses, id est ones sight, perhaps emotion and intellectual curiosity, maybe even sound, it lacks touch, smell and taste. As someone who loves food oneself, many of my activities (in game design) and the real world do then to revolve around food, but the problem I run into is the same, we can not capture the actuality of every human sense in p5 sketches. Maybe that is the imperfect beauty of this medium, and so to me I will focus on honing the sights and sounds of my p5 sketches, with keeping in light a degree of naturality or randomness that helps to convey a deeper meaning, or perhaps is just there to perplex the observer!

A strongly interactive system listens carefully, thinks with some complexity, and responds in a clear way that affects what the user does next. It feels more like a back and forth conversation. I agree with Crawford that calling a shampoo bottle or a basic light switch “interactive” weakens the word, because those things only react in one fixed way. At the same time, his strict rejection of books, films, and performances as non interactive feels narrow to me, because people often respond to media through comments, edits, or shared viewing, which shapes the experience indirectly. Crawford seems biased toward systems that resemble one on one dialogue and software with explicit input and output, and less interested in social or cultural interaction around media. That bias is useful for learning to design, but it also raises concerns about how we value hybrid experiences like interactive films.

I found this reading really interesting because the author’s writing style is amusing and engaging. It almost made me feel like I was interacting with the ideas while I was reading. The reading also gave me a new, clearer definition of what “interactive art” means. The examples helped me realize that I didn’t fully understand interactive art before. In the author’s view, an interactive event needs three parts: speaking, listening, and responding. All three have to be present. And the response has to be meaningful; if the response is too weak or shallow, then the event does not really count as interactive in a strong sense.

Before, I assumed that if an artist designed something “interactive,” it would still be interactive even if there was no audience, or even if people were not paying attention. After reading, I understand the author’s point that the audience is not just watching the art—the audience becomes part of the artwork. In interactive art, the artist and the audience “make” the experience together. This is the first time I have really noticed how important the audience is to the final meaning of an art piece.

I also like the idea of “degrees of interactivity.” Some artworks create strong interaction because the audience thinks carefully and responds in a thoughtful way. Other situations feel less interactive because the audience may not notice what the work is asking, or they may respond without thinking much. This raises questions for me: how can we tell whether an interaction is “high” or “low” in interactivity? Who gets to decide that? Also, does the level of interactivity change how an artwork is interpreted, or can the meaning stay the same even when audience responses are shallow?

I do agree with the author that interactivity is a two-way process. It is something I interact with, and something that interacts with me. However, does it have to include all three components the author mentions—speaking, listening, and thinking? Are we really interacting with computers in the same way? They do not think the way humans do. They are trained using mathematical equations and algorithms, yet they can sometimes outperform human thinking.

In my opinion, a strong interactive system allows me to manipulate things in real time—for instance, typing on a computer right now or playing a virtual reality (VR) game. There is not necessarily a listening, speaking, or even thinking component. According to the author, this would not be considered interactive. But for me, interaction means getting a reaction to my actions.

One example the author gives is an interactive rug, which I would not consider interactive from the rug’s side because it does not interact with me in the same way I interact with it—I simply play with cars on it. However, I would consider rugs that teach prayer through step-by-step instructions, or similar designs, to be interactive because I interact with them and they interact with me.

In the future, I would add things that get the user more involved in my p5 sketches, creating a real interaction between the user and the sketch. For example, I could use ml5 and other machine learning libraries to make the sketches respond to gestures, sounds, or movements. I think a strong interactive system should give feedback to the user, so their actions actually change what happens on the screen in real time. This way, the interaction doesn’t need to include thinking or speaking like the author says—it’s still interactive because the sketch reacts to me. I also wonder, though, does a system need intention or intelligence to be truly interactive, or is responsiveness enough?

 

Crawford’s reading has spiked my questioning of what we deem is an interactive system and in general interacitivity. Because if I am honest, I do not agree with Crawford’s take on his definition of interactivity. He comes at it from a more simplistic and dumbed down view of the definition, and frankly, doesn’t seem to me is a proper way to define it. Crawford defines interactivity through the following defintion: 

I choose to define it in terms of a conversation: a
cyclic process in which two actors alternately listen, think,
and speak. ~ Crawford, 1950

I mean firstly, isn’t everything we see, hear, touch, smell and feel a “conversation”. Every body of work, is a communication, between the author/publisher and the reader consuming the information. It is quite literally a transfer of information like any conversation. Now for this cyclic process he talks about, there are many holes with it.

I mean, he mentions that two actors are supposed to listen, think and speak. But any program, and especially AI, cannot think independently on its own accord. And the other point was him dismissing the fact that books and movies are not interactive by nature. I’m sorry, but what does Word or Powerpoint or hell, even me writing this article on WordPress, constitue as?? You cannot say, okay if I know what to expect with a book, that it’s a think object with words, that any computer program is much more interactive. I know what to expect when I type on the keyboard in Word or drag around images in Powerpoint. Any interaction I have with a computer program, to similar degree I’m interacting with a book by reading it. Even movies too, they make us think about the characters thinking what action to take given the event in the movie. So it is the same thing and both actions are the same degree of interactivity.

Rant out of the way, what would I define interactivity as in terms of characteristics? I would define it in a way where any action we do with a program, creates a reaction. And no, not where the computer thinks, but where we are actively thinking what the outcome is. I would also say here that interactivity is definitionally having multiple art forms and elements coming together in one. Games are the perfect example of this notion, as they compile together multiple elements, such as text, images, music and user input, in order to form a complete intaractive experience.

In terms of my own p5js sketches, I will add more interaction in terms of keyboard and mouse input and dedicate different functions for different keys. Such as if I did an artwork of some sort, the user would have different effects happen depending on the keys pressed. Another potential option is exploring face tracking or body tracking software, but that might be a challenge in of its own haha.

Watching Casey Reas’ talk influenced the way I think about randomness in interactive artwork. It made me reflect on how, in traditional art, we often try to control every aspect of every element. I typically do not plan every aspect of my own art pieces; sometimes I go with the flow, and sometimes I see where my thoughts take me. However, Reas’ discussion of “systems” rather than “images” challenges my creative process.

This raises the question of when computational art is truly random, or whether it is our own thoughts and decisions that contribute to the apparent randomness of the work. I wonder how much control I actually have over “chance” in a digital system and whether the unpredictability is generated by the algorithm or by the choices I make in setting up the system. This makes me reconsider the balance between control and randomness in creative processes.

So, I want to say that randomness is still a type of control because I think we will never achieve full randomness. This is evident in chaos theory: in a small picture, it looks chaotic, but as we zoom out to see the full picture, it becomes more evident that it is a longer form of a pattern, more complex, yet there is still some type of control.