2/26/03

This assignment placed me in a slight predicament, since I generally dislike handheld devices other than cd and tape players. This of course means that my first instinct was to select a product along the lines of Apple's iPod, which unfortunately is not internet enabled, thus ruling it out (it is also very well designed as it is, and monumentally expensive). Thus, I have settled on working with some kind of PDA, especially since I loathe cell-phones.

The most prominent PDA manufacturer is of course Palm (with what is by now a rather time-tested product). The design of their crop of Palm Pilots isn't bad, as far as I can tell either, but I still felt that there is ample room for modification. I have decided already that as a rule I will avoid a Macintosh-like design scheme since it's become the bandwagon that everyone's been jumping on lately, and I'd rather not beat it to death.

The idea for the modification is an folding design based on a winged insect (I think I had a beetle in mind when I was sketching it out) which has quite a bit of appeal to me, but I'm having a hard time figuring out how to make it at all practical and, more importantly, at all useful. The idea of a device that folds in on itself to become truly pocket-sized appeals to me.

As it stands, I'm still hoping for some divine inspiration to strike, giving me great insight on how best to work out this combination.

2/3/03

For my midterm project, I would like to create an audio-based interactive work in which the user will have the ability to play pre-recorded sound loops. The apparently synchronized loops of equal length (or in any case seeminly multiples of a common length) will in fact fall out of synchronization over time. The user will initially have the illusion that he or she is using a standard "beatmaking" loop-based interactive work, but the sense of control will be somewhat eroded as the noises fall out of the expected synchronization, and in turn create unintended and seemingly arhythmic dischord.

2/1/03

To be honest, I forgot what exactly my reading assignment was, so I did three sections of David Rokeby's writing, knowing that within that selection were the two readings I had actually been assigned.

1. Navigable Structures

Perhaps the most straightforward of the sections I covered, the "Navibale Structures" section basically defines the term and provides examples of application.

The term navigable structure refers to the basic underpinnings of an interactive work, more or less defining the kind of experience and the level of involvement that the user experiences. The distinction is made between "actual" 3D spaces (such as Jeffrey Shaw's piece The Legible City) and abstract representations of space (this is the category that most hypermedia work fall under).

The reactions of the user to the interactive experience (in relation to the structure of the work) are covered as well. It is noted that many participants are rather wary of their role in some intaractive works, feeling a little something like lab rats, their behavior being ovserved, evaluated, and judged. This concern is perhaps not always warranted (I would say, and so would David Rokeby, that Jeffry Shaw's piece is open-ended enough that it shouold cause no such concern) but in some cases may in fact be somewhat justified. Paul Sermon's work, Think about the People Now, forces the users to make a series of important decisions, eventually defining his or her position in relation to an event (a protestor burning himself). Partially due to the politicised nature of the project, and partly due to the weight of the user's decisions, the project seems to carry with it great potential for some heavy moralizing, and evenpossibly of a bit of finger-wagging.

2. Transforming Mirrors:

This section dwells upon the significance of user input and the tendancy in many works to reflect the movements/gestures/etc. in the interactivity of the work. Rokeby kicks things off by tying this aspect of interactivity to Greek mythology, in a nominal manner (Echo and Narcissus). Two kinds of "reflections" in interactivity are defined.

Perfect and mirrored reflectins are defined as those more closely remeniscient of the myth of Narcissus, in that they represent a fairly consistant reflection of user input. Delayed and distorted reflections entail a less-literal translation of input, often including some inconsistancies in response, or presenting a reaction in a not-too-obvious manner.

A great distinction is drawn between the notion of "control" (which most users seem to desire) and "encounter" (which perhaps leaves more room for creative use of the technology). Rokeby believes that the "encounter" is the more important aspect of interaction, although a certain level of control has its place in more commercial applications of interactivity..

A primary indication of control that the user often seeks is repetition. The absence of repetition (or as the users sees it, "consistancy") obscures the reflective nature of interactivity, providing the user with less of a sense of contol. In fact greater repetition in an interactive work can many times be indicative of a simpler device.

3. Automata

The briefest of the reading sections, Automata, dealt less with traditional applications of interactivity and instead on the lofty pusuit of an artificial life, qualified in the writing as a "self-replicating, self-sustaining machine." All of which is admittedly far fetched. Suggested as a more attainable goal is Norman White's suggestion of seeking to create "artificial sanity," that is, the ability to at least achieve some kind of comprehension of surroundings.

The work with artificial life follows a very different path from standard interactivity. Rather than create an environment or series of choices for the user, the artist creates a single unit that develops its own responses to situations and hopefully alters its responses based on experience and exposure to an increasing number of variables.

Some of White's work involves human response to the requests (and later commands) of an immobile robot. This once again raises the issue of the user's reaction to the interactive work. It is possible to see in some of White's work how the unresponsive or very demanding nature of some of the robots might be dismaying to participants, steming once again from that "lab rat" sensation. Certainly the role of the interactive artist is not to create feelings of ease and satisfaction for the user, but it is perhaps a consideration nonetheless.

4. Conclusions:

A most basic element of any interactivity is the response that is generated by user actions. The level and discernability of the response vary in relation to the application of interactivity, and the objective of the work.

For non-commercial, more artistic purposes, a broader set of user choices (initially, at least) and a less-repetitious set of responses may be desirable.

The terms of the reading are so vague with so many potential interpretations that most Google searches have either resulted in bands named "Delayed Response," academic papers on cellular automata, the gaming company "Reflections Interactive," or David Rokeby's writing itself. None of which is additionally enlightening.

One interesting link that I did come across, however, is the site for White's Helpless Robot (http://www.year01.com/helpless/), complete with source code, an artist statement, and a public license. The information in the artist statement seems to reveal that the nagging nature of the robot is not in fact intended by the artist, but that it is a technique the robot has developed out of trial and error experience (the robot begins by being quite polite, but eventually becomes more insistent).

I believe very much that it is essential to strike a balance between user control and unpredictability in relation to the intent of the project. It has, among other things, caused me to consider the extent to which the user will have control in my midterm project. I would like the possibility of "mastering" the interactive work to exist to a degree, but I don't want to make it obvious.

Now of course, after reading David Rokeby's essays, I can see that my "ideal practice" example on the Ideas page is in fact very simple and utilitarian. All of which is of course very well suited to its purpose as a self-promotional website, but leaves little room for experimentation.

1/27/02

Assignment 3:

Selected from this site:

This representation of the molecular structure of the Aluminum-silazane, whatever that is exactly, has become the geometric basis for my design, after several false starts.

This is a very basic representation of the structure, which is what I started with.

the flash file:

This is what I've been able to build off of the original, basic structure. As you can see, I haven't managed to create a non-repeating version of this project. As soon as I can manage that, then I will activate many of the smaller hexagons as interactive buttons. The animated paths between hexagons pretty much represent how I'd like the interactive aspect of the project to look (the intention being that one would try to guide "information" between two points, but the nature of the Flash file would dictate many detours, but with the same end goal eventually being reached... yeah, it's kind of a literal translation of the whole network aspect of the project, I know).

Ideas, Sketchbook/Exercieses, Midterm, Final, Home