Subjectivity and Control...

Topic of the day: Interface and interaction... inter-esting, no?

There's an article by David Rokeby called "Transforming Mirrors: Subjectivity and Control in Interactive Media". so after many pages of confused reading, i present Chris Ong's take on the reading (in relation to my tutorial questions of course). and awaaaaay we go...

1. There's a part where Rokeby mentions something along the lines of the fact that an interactive system without boundaries / limitations does little to satisfy the user in the course of interaction. so what he means i guess is that boundaries (which appear in the form of interface) are necessary and important to allow effective interaction to occur between the user and the system. If so, how does interface come into the picture? well. interface allows the user to interact with the system. it tells what the user what can (and cannot) be done in the course of interaction. Interface achieves this via:

a. Affordances - the properties of an object (within the interactive system) which either directly (through physical properties aka actual) or indirectly (through implication aka perceived) tell the user what can be done with it. ie., buttons are for clicking, knobs are for twisting, etc. you get the idea.

b. Constraints - limits to what the user can do with elements of the interactive system. the elements are meant to be used in certain ways, and constraints then make 'other' ways of using them impossible.

c. Feedback - how the elements respond to actions being taken on them. everyone likes feedback. it's essential for 2-way communication (and hence interaction). basically it lets you know whether what you're doing is the right thing (or wrong one), since most people expect a response.

2. i guess the whole gist of it would be that freedom can only be enjoyed fully when it's exercised within limits (like interface for example). however, Rokeby thinks that this freedom is only 'symbolic' (since the interactors are still working within the creator's constraints). I'd have to say that i agree with Rokeby on this one. let's take an example of a website. now in a website you have a reasonable amount of freedom to interact with the system - you click on buttons / links, look at all the bells and whistles they put in to spice it up... and basically, you can pretty much choose where within the website you want to go. that's FREEDOM. BUT (and it's a pretty big one mind you) you're still within the boundaries of that particular website. it's interface allows you only to do things that is within it's constraints. you can't see more than what there is (assuming you don't leave for another site of course).

3. okaaaay. this one's tough.

a) People want to know how interactive something is. and naturally, the more often the system responds to you in the same way, the less interactive the user feels it is (kind of like how you complain some games have terribly stupid AI. i've got a lame comment to make about AI, but i'll save it for another time).

b) For systems to be truly interactive, their responses shouldn't be consistent / repetitive ie. every time it should have a different response. Because like mentioned in a), the more consistent the response, the less interactive it appears to the user.

How would i solve this contradiciton? i don't think it really can be reconciled. because though a creator of the interactive media may think of as many possibilities as possible, these are finite in relation to the any number of possible ones that he may not have considered. and besides, sometimes there's only so many ways of reacting to a certain input (like how 1 + 1 input into a calculator can only be 2). that's why response is consistent. so what can a creator of interactive media do? work with his resources to cover as much of the possibilities for interaction as possible.

4. hmm. the role of the creator of interactive media? i guess the creator is someone who goes from being a producer to a facilitator. conventional artwork is pretty much one way (passive audience). but interactive media requires the audience to participate / influence / modify the artwork. naturally this gives the creator of this artwork less control over the audience. so when the creator no longer has much control, i guess he is as much as participant as the audience is, though his role would more likely to be setting constraints for the audience in how they should interact with the artwork.

5. Rokeby's opposition to 'transparent interfaces'. hmm. i guess Rokeby is against it because of the way it may affect the end user. though transparent interface would imply users being free to work without realising that there is an interface (hence suggesting the complete freedom as mentioned earlier), the fact that there is no line between interface and reality (if you would call it that) cease to exist then that interface becomes part of the user.

i know it's lame (and maybe i might even be wrong) but for a moment let's just look at the concept behind The Matrix (*cue groans from audience members. Chris prepares to dodge any rotten vegetables or other dangerous flying objects that may be flung in his direction*). I guess you could say that for the people in the Matrix, the Matrix is the interface between them and the system. but as we all know, most (if not all) do not know that in reality what they are experiencing is not the real world, but rather a reality projected by the Matrix interface. This changes the user and the user's own sense of reality (which is essential what Rokeby says that transparent interface will do).

but enough of that. personal example you ask? then let's talk about SMS. don't believe that it's changed your life (and perhaps without even noticing)? well, allow me to demonstrate:

wat do i haf 2 do 2 convince u tt its true? y cant u c 4 urself? :)

haha. point proven.

later people.