Topic awaiting preservation: interactive media... (Page 1 of 1)

I've been wondering what everyone?s take is on this 'concept'.

What do you define as interactive 'media'?

Interaction is a very broad term which is also true when you apply it to media. Some would even say that your average television is interactive because you can change the channel (simple input-feedback loop) and some would argue that this isn't interaction at all. Others would go even further to say that TV is not just contained to the glass tube you perceive it in but it also reaches out beyond that to touch Billboards, TV Guides, personal conversations, competitions and many of these things are highly interactive and since they are cause by 'TV' then it's 'TV' that's causing this interaction therefore 'TV' is highly interactive. Although that's more to do with elements of society and media penetration but you get the idea.

Anyways, what's your take on interactive Media?

I'm not talking about just TV or just web technologies, I'm talking about all forms of media weather it be written, spoken, seen, smelt or heard but that doesn't mean we can't get specific. What's your notion of interactive media and what direction do you think it's moving in? Will people still consider Television to be 'interactive' 100 years from now? What do you expect to see and what do you want to see happen with the web as an interactive medium?

I'm only really asking this because so many people seem to have different ideas as to what 'qualifies' as interactive media and I think it's interesting to explore what we expect from technology in terms of interaction. For example, if you'd told me 5 years ago that a simple web forum would take on the construct of a never sleeping coffee shop full of mates that I always felt an urge to visit, I'd say you were a mental case, but that's basically what this place is to me. Well, that and a lot more but you get the idea.

Very Cool topic, Drac.

For me 'interactive media' means that I am able to directlky interact with, change/react to things, and change the outcome or direction of the content of that media. Something along the lines of the choose-your-own-way books. A choice that I make directly influences where the content goes. In that sense of things... I don't find TV to be interactive. Nor do I find most books to be interactive. As a matter of fact... most things aren't interactive. You can interact WITH them, but they aren't inherently interactive in and of themselves.

I would even go so far as to say that something interactive has to be able to adapt to changes that are made by the user. Something along the lines of a holodeck. That is perhaps a bit extreme but that's where I see interaction actually happening. Something dynamic that is going to react to you as much as you react to it.

I hope that made sense and was along the lines of what you were asking...

GrythusDraconis
"I'm sick of hearing that beauty is only skin-deep. That's deep enough. Who wants an adorable pancreas?" - Unknown

Yeah, that was basically what I was asking about.

A startreck holodeck eh?... I was wondering how long it would be before that came up. Many people see this (and things like the matrix) as the pinnacle of interactivity media but, well, isn't that making the media so interactive that it?s not being interactive any more? After all, why would reading a book in a holodeck or the matrix be interactive when reading a book in real life isn't?

I mean, if you can't tell the difference between the simulation and the reality then really the term interaction can only be applied to the "objects" in reality or inside the simulation.

I guess this brings up another question, is simulation a valid form of interactivity? If so then metaphors must also be heavily tired to what "interactivity" in media is defined as... Maybe... Just thinking out loud here...

Metaphors are often used to aid interactive media as a concept already learnt is one we don't have to re-teach and if we can borrow that from something common or familiar then it makes the whole process easier to adapt to. I seem to be going in circles?.

Thinking about software and OS interfaces, how'd people ever come up with ideas like "windows" and scroll bars?... They work so well but where's the metaphor for them?

Now that I think about this some more, it?s also interesting to see that parts of interactivity in the computer industry and fed back into itself. For instance, software interfaces with virtual wheel like devices for scrolling probably inspired the scroll wheels that are now common place on each computer mouse.

Actually, it's quite likely that the scroll bar systems we're so used to today slowly evolved out of simplistic key driven interfaces with simple up/down arrows. The whole page by page viewing probably worked well for a while but the scroll bar would have first been added to provide some kind of visual indication as to where you were on the page (other that a page number anyways). So I suppose that the side of a scroll bar's handle could be related to the thickness of a book, all be it a bit backwards but....

Hey lookie there, I answered my own question but now I?m jst ranting so I guess I should zip it.

Anyhow, um, yeah, back to the topic, interactive um stuff?.

Well I was actually going for interactivity being a mutual interaction. If I directly involve myself in something I am interacting with it... but is it interacting with me? I hesitate to say, yes. I think it's the unknown aspect of the interaction, the adaptability that makes something able to interact. If something isn't capable of that.. it just a programmed response, not a true interaction.

GrythusDraconis
"I'm sick of hearing that beauty is only skin-deep. That's deep enough. Who wants an adorable pancreas?" - Unknown

Well, just because the 'interaction' is invisible, or not noticable (suspension of dis-belief), doesn't mean that it isn't interaction (in the case of the Matrix and holo-deck examples). The point being, that a computer program and/or energy is interacting. In fact, the most advanced form of interaction is invisible. At that point, it then feels natural.

I want the Matrix type of interaction...now! Though the holo-deck would also be nice...how about both, combined into one?

Well Then we'll have to talk to Reggie and get him to build that neural interface again. Seeing as he's the only one who's ever made one. Of course his brain was on crank or something at the time so... it'll be a bit difficult to replicate the circumstances.

GrythusDraconis
"I'm sick of hearing that beauty is only skin-deep. That's deep enough. Who wants an adorable pancreas?" - Unknown

I think interactive depends wholly on the person. To me, a book is interactive media, I'm there in it while I'm reading it, part of the story. You can work your way 'up' the medias from there, all the way to Flash and vrs and stuff like that where you can physically control them to some degree.

This is the best coffee shop ever

Jason

I tend to partly agree with JKMabry here, I mean you can very well have the matrix/holo-deck merged into something really pretty, but as long as the user doesn't indulge themselves it can as well be static.

To me interactive is the ability a software/game/book/event to respond to an action from the user...take sleeping for an example, when you dream, you are totally transported to another world where your sub-conscious interacts with you thoughts completely, think sleep walkers/talkers.

Have I had too much coffee ?

quote:

---

Dictionary - in·ter·ac·tive
adj.
1. Acting or capable of acting on each other.
2. -Computer Science- Of or relating to a program that responds to user activity.
3. Of, relating to, or being a form of television entertainment in which the signal activates electronic apparatus in the viewer's home or the viewer uses the apparatus to affect events on the screen, or both.

---

Just for reference

I still don't see how the martix can be seen as interactive in a way the real world isn't. The real world has programmed responses too, we call the laws of physics. It has rules it must conform to, just like everything else.

But I think were moving away from interactive media and looking at the term "interaction" in general - which is fine because I think we'd need to understand interaction full stop before we can apply the term to media. Maybe we should re-define the term interactive media as "Interaction in media" or to quote another well coined term, ?human computer interaction?, but that?d kinda kill JK?s wonderfully interactive book.

Although, I did like where Jason was going with his idea of interaction -- what about non-physical interaction?

How about a conversation?

Having a chat with a good mate it highly interactive as the conversation bounces off one another but can you have a conversation in human computer(or machine) interaction?

I guess this aspect is what makes the holo-deck the holy grail (the matrix is more like a massively multiplayer game whilst the holo-deck is mostly comprised artificial or simulated agents) in terms of interaction. I also think that certain elements of a physical conversation don't need to exist for the interaction to function properly. Take this very forum for example. I often see the interaction here as just one big conversation but there are so many element missing I'm amazed it still feels the same. There's no time here, no physical location, no accents, no smell, no facial expressions, no faces to a certain degree yet something as simple as a bracket and a colon can substitute for a genuine smile and the whole process of conversion seems transparent to me.

Its things like this that make me question weather or not something as powerful as the holo-deck is really needed. Or more to the point, should a notion like a holo-deck, which is such a blatant copy of reality, be studied in terms of interaction when so many other simpler systems seem to work almost as well?

Maybe they only work so well because of the high dependency of human agents for the system to function?

Or should we instead focus on where reality helps us define interaction in order to better understand why we want holo-decks?

Why the Matrix is interactive? I'm surprised that an answer is necessary here...

One can 'wake up' from the Matrix...try that with reality. Point is, it doesn't really matter if some (or all, for that matter) are not cognizant of the actual interaction...it only matters, that there is interaction.

The Matrix is portrayed as a 'giant' program, to hold humanity in a software prison...one remembers from the film, that other 'programs', or Matrices failed...

Also, in the Matrix, if one is aware that it is, indeed, just an interactive program, some rules can be ignored, or gone around...again, try that with reality. 'Oh, this is not real...so when I jump off this cliff, I won't be hurt'...yeah, right...good luck. Gravity just doesn't 'go away' by wishing it so

quote:

---

Why the Matrix is interactive? I'm surprised that an answer is necessary here...

One can 'wake up' from the Matrix...try that with reality. Point is, it doesn't really matter if some (or all, for that matter) are not cognizant of the actual interaction...it only matters, that there is interaction.

---

In what context does it only matter that there is interaction?

I think your taking the concept of interaction for granted here. If you were to be placed in a loading construct of the matrix, you know the endless white expanse, with on-one else there, where's the interaction? There's nothing to touch, see or smell. No one to talk to... Nothing. It's still the technology of the matrix but without any content then there simply is no interaction.

Granted there would be some ?objects? for you to interact with like a floor and gravity but let?s look past that for a moment. The matrix revolves around millions of concepts and all of them are extremely appealing but the actual interaction it what I want to focus on here.

The interaction is what takes place inside the matrix, actually existing inside the matrix is 'immersion' and whilst I think this is strongly related to how many people view interaction that's a whole other subject in and of itself. Having the ability to ?wake up? from the matrix doesn?t change anything about how interactive is it.

I thing I'm wrestling with at the moment is why everyone views the highest levels of interaction to be a copy of reality. Personally I think this is important but at times can lead to a dead end. The ability to wake from the reality or not doe?t change the way the interaction is bound to objects, be them real objects in the real world or damn near exact copies simulated in the matrix. Sure, the matrix can bend and break rules but their still based in reality. A bullet can be willed to a stop but it's still a bullet. More so, the ability to actually will a bullet to a halt is only useful if there's a gun loaded with bullets and someone holding that gun is actually shooting at you. Kinda makes the whole bullet stopping ability a bit limited, epically if your on a deserted desert island.

Furthermore, let?s face it, not everyone can stop bullets in the matrix. In fact, only one person can do that and for anyone to do anything even remotely similar they first have to realise that the world is in fact not real and even then, bending the rules is a hard thing to do. The transparent mental interface that defines the matrix makes it easy to do every day tasks but having to alter you own perception of reality just so you can do something extraordinary doesn't seem to user friendly to me. In fact, in this regard the interaction with the matrix is limited by your ability to disbelieve in that reality, which by all intent purposes goes against what most people seem to think the matrix is really about.

Don't get me wrong here, I think the matrix and concepts like it are very important in our views of what interaction is but the movie kinda underlines what I'm trying to get at quite nicely. To do anything extraordinary you have to break apart the concepts that define reality.

So, to make a virtual object interactive you simple make a copy of it. The problem with this is that simulated object will only be able to do what its real world object can do. To enhance this in any way you have to break away from these confines. What the matrix doesn?t illustrate is how to do this and still make the process of interaction easy. In fact, it does the complete opposite because everything about the matrix needs to copy the real world so closely anything extra is such a difficult thing to do but it doesn?t have to be that way.

For example, to stray from interaction to immersion for a second, do you think a movies would be more enjoyable if you always saw the whole thing from the first person perspective of the main character?...

No, of course not, 3rd person perspectives work so much better yet the concept of 3rd person isn't possible in the matrix. Which is why I'd like to give the matrix a little nod for reminding everyone of how easy interaction can be when simulating the real world down to the letter, but I defiantly don't think it's the be all and end all of interaction. In fact, claiming that it is the definitive representation of interaction is only going to hinder our understanding of how we go about constructing interactive works. How do the interactive concepts used in the matrix (which, lets face it, are just the concepts of reality) help us create an interactive work in the 3rd person or how ever which way we decide is most effective way of presenting out information, story or content?

I think you have something very, VERY specific in mind and we aren't going to be able to spit it out until you decide to tell us.

Interaction, by its basesst meaning is everything that exists. We are all interacting with everything.

'Interactive Media' implies something else. I think it implies something that interacts with us... It's something unpredictable that adapts and changes as we do. I can interact with you (Fist hits head) or we can interact with each other (nice chatty conversation) If I'm not recieving any input form the media I'm not being interacted with. There is no initiative from the opposite side. without that initiative on both sides I think interactivity is a falllacy.

GrythusDraconis
"I'm sick of hearing that beauty is only skin-deep. That's deep enough. Who wants an adorable pancreas?" - Unknown

Huh?

I don't actually want anyone to say anything in particular, I was simply trying to express that things like the matrix sidestep so many important things. I did ask what most people would define as interactive media, in which the arguments were that interaction is something that you can "engage" with to some degree. Something that adapts or provides feedback that is in some way based on user input. Which is all good and well but of that the only examples people offered were a star trek holo-deck and the matrix.

My gripe with the matrix or a holo-deck being used as an example of interactivity is that they seem rather pointless as they don't exist yet and their simply near perfect simulations of reality, which I don't think inculpates what interactive media really is.

Something that hasn?t been mentioned yet is the limited way in which we interact with media. We can't change the way our hand works or the amount of opposable digits we have but devices like a keyboard and mouse (or a mobile phone keypad, or a watch etc?) can and will change over time but the matrix and the holo-deck take the easy way out of that problem by assuming we've figured out how manifest a simulation in a physical for or to put the simulation into your head, both of which aren't likely to be possible in media for many many years after we're all six foot under, again making them kinda pointless when talking about todays forms of interactive media.

I didn?t come here looking for you to answer any specific question; I was simply interested in tossing around some ideas. You brought up the holo-deck and I said that the holo-deck is simply a system and of itself is not interactive, but the objects inside a holo-deck can be interactive. Expressing that I though it would be more interesting to focus on the concepts that made something like that interactive and what issues these kinds of simulations didn?t cover in terms of interactive media. But for some screwy reason everyone thought I was saying the matrix wasn?t interactive or something...

Ok...then let's talk about what is available now (or possible).

How about cyber glove-interaction with a 3D type interface (like what can be done with Autocad)? Personally, I hate keyboards...and the mouse. I would rather directly use my hands to influence the software...without a noticable intermediate. I want to be able to 'grasp' the elements on the screen directly, and get feedback from that directly.

And full-voice recognition...so I can issue commands, ask questions, etc by voice. Remember Blade Runner, where Harrison Ford is using the computer to examine the photo? That was cool...something like that, but with the added ability of the software to ask back...for example 'Move in 50%'...the program responds 'Where in the picture 50%?'...something along those lines...or something like what was in Minority Report...

In end effect, I want the interactivity to become more 'intelligent', and responsive to my personal needs and wishes. Remember that cyber book series by Tad Williams? I want something like beezlebug...a 'personal' servitor program...that is also interactive.

Interesting, I never really thought about voice as an input before. Well, I suppose it's already being used for internet gaming but actually issuing commands to a computer through voice would be a fairly big leap. I know there are software programs out there that can already to this but from what I know, the technology is still a little sketchy.

Do you think it would actually remove the need for a keyboard though?

I think in the very least it would change the roll of the keyboard and when such devices become easier to implement then keyboard like devices will become more specific to the machine or device your currently using. At the very lest I can see things like volume control nobs remaining as these would be easier to adjust in a physical way. I can also see there being lots of problems with standardising commands in voice activation for a while because lets face it, we still don't have command line interfaces that except any kind of loose language commands.

Actually, voice would basically be an audio version of the command line in many ways wouldn't it?

Not to say that would be a bad thing. May people have realised that even though command lines are old news they still have their roots firmly planced in language and that can be a very powerfull tool.

Still, I think something like a voice interface could become a very handy way of standardising the way we interact with different devices like your computer, your mobile phone, your microwave etc ect... No more device specific key controls(except for those that would be easier to use without voice) just a standardised set of voice commands and a microphone pickup.

I'm not sold on the 3D glove things though. I've used a couple of them before and I don't think their all that useful for tasks that require any kind of precision. One I used was simply to manipulate 3D objects displayed on a 2D screen. It may have been the way everything was programmed but the whole thing seemed very awkward and well, my hand ached after a while as I didn?t actually have anything physical to grasp on to so I was continually supporting the gloves weight in mid air. The other one I used wasn't for visual manipulation but for sound. It was extremely fun having direct audio feedback from each digit and movement of my hand but I couldn't really manage any kind of repertition with it due to a lack of solid visual feedback as to what my movements were actually doing.

Then again, with a bit of practice they might feel more precise. After all, I've seen some special interest programs on the ABC about these kinds of devices being used in the medical industry, giving surgeons the ability to operate on a patient half way across the world. For these kind of applications they make more sense as your 3D input in being replicated in true 3D, as apposed to a 3D representation on a 2D screen.

I think new kinds of input devices will alter the kind of applications we use as well as the devices themselves. With radical ideas like that tooth phone and blue tooth technology (what's with all the tooth related tech anyways?) being tossed about objects like the land line telephone could very well be a thing of the past within the next 20 years.

Now that I think about it, input devices all have one common limitation: Humans. Our hands don't very well lend themselves to input for digital devices but there's still a lot of un-tapped potential in the things we do with a high level of control every day. Utilising every aspect of our hand and finger movements has yet to be accomplished and successfully used in any kind of media except the real world, voice is another one, as is general body movement but I think the most precise instrument we humans have is our eyes. The ability to quickly focus on specific objects in a true 3D environment is something that has yet to be fully realised. It?ll probably take a while for such tech to be made but by thinking about what body parts we can most accurately become very practised at using is probably the best way to predict how input devices will change in the coming years.

Voice is a strange ability of us humans though. Technically, language is a technology in itself and only possibly because we have such a large vocal range. The more I think about it, the more likely it seems that adapting our vast potential in language and voice will be the next big thing when it comes to interactive media.

Anyways, I'm just ranting again so I should probably just shut up now.

Well, the hand and the voice are the most flexible instruments that we have to affect the world in which we live in...the brain being the main tool, yes...but hard to affect things with just a brain. Using the brain itself as the input device would be preferrable, IMHO...but that is more Matrix-like.

Imagine doing Photoshop with just your hands and voice...what type of flexibility, and naturalness you would have. 'Bush, 20% opaque' and then move it with your hand, with direct-force feedback, just like a real brush. Of course, it will not remove the fact that one must learn the commands, and train the muscles of the hand...that would still exist. Working direct from ones brain might cut that last part out...

Using thought as the input device is probably the ultimate form of this process, for humans, IMHO.