This week was inspiring, we made a prototype of hair care machine in a group.
It contains some functions such like wash, dry and style your hair in 10 secs. Also it can customize through a bunch of choices like your gender, length of hair and what specific hair style you want.
It’s just a raw prototype but it give us a sense of interactivity.
There are three questions:
How to define physical interaction?
Interactivity exists upon the “conversation”- listening thinking and speaking, which stands for input, process, and output. Extend this definition to physical interaction, that means there exists a conversation between users and product physically. That being said, product fully captures any changing energy made by users, process it, and give a feedback to users. In turn, users receive the feedback and think what’s that mean, then make a response to the product accordingly. That uninterrupted loop is physical interaction.
What makes for good physical interaction?
Listen well, think well, speak well at the same time would result in a high-level interactivity that we should pursue. As to physical interaction, analogically, capture changing energy precisely, process it correctly and comprehensively, give the feedback vividly and legibly would become a bedrock of a good physical interaction.
Are there works from others that you would say are good examples of digital technology that are not interactive?
I found this video online:
I love the concept of digital nature, but I won’t take it as an interactive technology because no conversation exists between nature and the technology. Truly, this technology would react on what the nature changes, capture it, process it and demonstrate a digital image, yet what the technology demonstrate would never change the nature, there is no way that the nature reacting to the changing digital image. So the loop collapse, that’s why I won’t consider it as an interactive technology.