Form Follows Process
Does interaction have a form? And if so, how many? An approach to product-language design theory for interactive media.
A Bachelor’s project by Ali Haidari, Nicholas Konrad and Alexander Korolkov
7th semester, 2022
Supervising professor: Prof. Tsunemitsu Tanaka
The aim of our Bachelor’s thesis was to find out whether interaction has a form and whether it can be physically realised and communicated.
The attempt to give interaction a physical form is based on the assumption that interaction is an aspect, a feature or a characteristic of an object. Given the wide range of possible applications of the basic concepts of product language defined by Gros & Steffen, in the Offenbach approach, should mean that it is possible to represent this very characteristic of interactivity in exactly the same way as other semantic features or functional indicators, on the basis of which a product can be interpreted by its users. A failure of this attempt would mean that interaction cannot be encapsulated in a physical form and that, consequently, the understanding of interaction as a characteristic of an object is flawed. This therefore raises the question of what interaction is in the context of design.
Interaction is not described here as the willingness of an object or system to respond to users, but is equated with the very act of use by the users themselves. Interaction is therefore time-based and, in contrast to the characteristics or functional features of conventional products that remain constant over time, does not manifest itself physically; rather, as the interaction progresses, it forms a process whose specific form emerges dynamically. Design theory is put to the test by the attempt to make interaction visible, given the unpredictability of the specific dynamic development of the interaction and the situation-dependent processes. Depending on the interaction partners, the contextual conditions and the object to be designed itself, no two instances of use will ever be identical. The form of the interaction appears to be intangible.
At the outset of the preceding research, the hypothesis that interaction is communicated through the appearance of analogue objects was examined. Digital interfaces, by contrast, have not yet been examined in this study. Whilst, as already explained, it is not possible to represent the entire interaction in physical form in the case of objects, the digital space offers other, flexible means that can assist with this visualisation. Rogers, Sharp & Preece (2002) developed a model that classifies all activities involved in a user’s interaction with a digital interface into four categories. However, they also make it clear that it is possible for an activity to belong to more than one category:
‘Instructing’ is based on the idea that users give instructions. This includes, for example, typing verbal commands, selecting options from menus, speaking commands, pressing buttons or using keyboard shortcuts. This category is the quickest way to facilitate interaction.
Conversing is based on the idea that users engage in a conversation with the system — just as if they were communicating with another person. In the past, it was primarily text-based, as with Microsoft’s Clippy; today, it involves voice assistants such as Siri, Google Home, Alexa, etc.
Manipulating is based on the idea that users are enabled to alter their environment of virtual objects and thus navigate that environment. This concept assumes that the virtual environment shares certain similarities with the physical one, so that users can apply their knowledge of handling physical objects when dealing with virtual objects.
Exploring is based on the idea that the system provides information structured in a way that allows users to discover or learn about things without having to ask the system explicit, specific questions.