: After this class’ discussion and exercise, and reading Chris Crawford’s definition and Bret Victor’s rant, how would you define physical interaction? What makes for good physical interaction? Are there works from others that you would say are good examples of digital technology that are not interactive? :

A physical interaction must be thoughtful communication; an exchange of information between the two, but thoughtful in both ways; in terms that both parties must respond to the other, still not by simple reaction, but rather as an emotional interaction. In terms that one’s output must be another’s input for possible continuous communication.

That way a good interaction would be the one that put us in state of joy while interacting; and a good physical interaction would employ not just our intellection but also most parts of our bodies. Instead of just using fingers and eyes, we should concentrate more on how to design platforms that would use actual movements and all the senses we have that we intuitively use with such an ease.

The use of a keyboard or a touch screen is limited to just touching and fingers, and after a while, it is far from being fun. However, technology today allows us to make interfaces that could everyday experiences much more enjoyable and intuitive.

In addition to that, Google glasses could have been more than responses to you commands. They provide you with all kinds of information and respond to your questions; Comparison’s Sake it is more like addressing to your secretary than having pleasant talk to your friend. Yes I see it as a good example of digital technology that just should’ve been “more” interactive.

Comments are closed.