What is interaction?

When I finished reading the two articles, “The Art of Interactive Design” by Chris Crawford and “A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design” by Bret Victor, a scene from the film "Scent of a Woman" came across my mind. In the scene, Frank Slade, a blind retired lieutenant colonel teaches Donna, a stranger whom he met at a restaurant, how to dance the tango. I think that scene exactly explains what the physical interaction is.

Since Donna and Slade are truly engaged their mind, body, and all senses at that moment, they could reach a high level of interactivity. Not only Slade lead Donna in a spectacular tango on the dance floor but also may influence other people at a restaurant to have the emotional engagement with them. In other words, when we are in successful interactive systems, we do change while going through a cyclic process.   

In my opinion, physical interaction is a cyclic communication between individuals in which lead to further responses. And the more a cyclic communication is certain and clear, the more can easily be reached to a higher interactive system and it would be very effective.

In terms of enacting successful interactive design, we have to try to figure out what the exact needs and main purpose are and develop the interactions based on these elements. In the beginning of chapter 2 of the Chris Crawford’s article, it states, "Interactivity is important for designers because it is a new and revolutionary communication medium, yet a tried and true way to learn. Interactive communication is superior to conventional, one-way communication. Interactivity is also the computer's intrinsic competitive advantage. For artists, interactivity represents an exciting and unexplored field of effort." 

Speaking of the saying that “Interactivity is also the computer’s intrinsic competitive advantage.”, it can be related to the Bret Victor’s article. Computer was made by inspired people from visions. And it could be a very good tool that “addresses human needs by amplifying human capabilities” like Bret says in the article. By using computer as a tool, I think we  can design future interfaces which are beyond “ Pictures Under Glass” that can lead people to physically interact with tactile richness.

However, There are some of interactive technology that are not quite successful yet. One of the examples is interactive television which is adding data services to traditional television technology. Every time I think about interactive TV, I have a doubt about its aim and need. Do we have to put some pressure on televisions to be smart as just like what we do on computers? I think the reason why interactive TV does not spread abroad like smartphone, it’s because most people satisfied with TV the way it is. I don’t think it can be called ‘interactive’ TV based on the articles, it is just upgraded version of one-way communication.