This might be a bit late, but I wanted to talk about one of the thoughts that I had regarding the Eaton reading.
In the reading, Eaton described the attempts that have been made to define “beauty, “art”, and “aesthetic”. It is not my interest to argue for a definition of this in this post, but rather, the intention of this post is to ask:
What would a “beautiful interaction” look like?
Eaton described beauty and aesthetic from the perspective of art, music, and movies. As interaction and user experience designers, we should aim to seek out beauty and aesthetic in interactions, both in other’s designs and in our own designs.
While we interact with many things in the world, I want to focus my question on the interactions that are most pertinent to our field — human-computer interactions, or interactions using digital technologies. With the existing technologies out there, is there such a thing as a “beautiful interaction?”
My line of thinking for this post is oriented toward people’s interactions with currently existing input devices, such as mice, keyboards, remote controls, video game controllers, tablets, etc. (So perhaps, others can discuss other types of digital interactions that they feel are beautiful.) I want to discuss this because I feel that currently existing input devices do not allow for beautiful, aesthetic modes of input.
Digital input devices in the past few decades, I think, have been almost solely oriented to be a means of getting something done, not a means of expressing oneself. We move our mice around to move cursors around, and click to initiate an action. We hit keys on our keyboard to type. We push buttons on controllers and remotes to interact with other devices. We might use an analog stick to add some extra degree of control to our video games. However, when I see all these things being used, what might be considered beautiful is the result and/or output of these inputs. I have never gotten a sense of aesthetic wonder from watching a person use an input device, or from the act of using an input device myself.
You might make the case that some modes of input that require a high degree of skill are beautiful input interactions. For example, a few years ago, a YouTube video came out of of someone getting a perfect score in Guitar Hero 3‘s “Through The Fire and Flames”, arguably the most difficult song to play in the genre of music gaming. (The following video isn’t the original video to be released, but is a video where you can see a person using the guitar clearly.)
While a high degree of skill is needed to be able to play a perfect score on that song, I still do not consider this to be some kind of beautiful interaction. I am marveled by this person’s skill, but I am not awestruck with some kind of beautiful, aesthetic experience.
With the recent developments in motion input, we are starting to head in the direction of what might be a beautiful, aesthetic input. In motion, I think there is potential for beautiful interaction.
(image source: http://www.identitymine.com/forward/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/kinect360.jpg)
Our bodies have an immense amount of motions and positions that are possible. With this wide gamut of motion and positioning, we are able express ourselves with our bodies in a beautiful manner — much like what you might see through dancing or modeling.
However, I believe that we are not close to that point yet of achieving beautiful, aesthetic input interaction through motion. When I see what I believe to be the most complex motion sensor that is publically available — the Kinect — I still do not get a sense of aesthetic wonder from watching someone use it or from using it myself. I believe that its sensors are not powerful and precise enough to allow one to truly express oneself (and thus, no software has been made available to allow us to do so).
(image source: http://gamrfeed.vgchartz.com/galleries/2010-06-21/e3-hands-on-dance-central/e3-hands-on-dance-central_1277158587.jpg)
Some might say that a game like Dance Central is something where we can appreciate the input capabilities of the Kinect. However, while watching someone play the game Dance Central, I find myself amused, but not aesthetically aroused. The game itself is dictating how one should use motions. Thus, any kind of personal expression through motion is very limited at best.
So then, what might a beautiful input interaction device look like?
(image source: http://images2.sina.com/english/sports/p/2009/0909/U138P200T1D269340F12DT20090909055102.jpg)
Will we be able to reach a point where input interactions themselves are a source of marvel, rather than their results or outputs?
Will we be able to equip people with digital input devices to allow them to express themselves freely, like an artist or performer might?
Will we be able to watch other people express themselves through these input devices and have a sense of awe?
Will we be able to express our inner selves through digital technologies in ways that we never have before — and would it be only possible through technology?
As interaction and user experience designers, I believe that it is our strong obligation to keep a careful eye on the latest technological developments, because with each new technological step, I believe that there is the potential for us to begin answering these questions. It is my hope that in the next decade or two, strong answers to these questions will begin to appear.
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 24, 2012 at 4:28 am
Mudit Mittal
In a similar direction, Christian Beck’s article: What does an Interaction Design Portfolio look like?
http://www.hcidesigns.com/2007/09/what-does-an-interaction-design-portfolio-look-like/
I just happened to be reading that when I saw your post
January 24, 2012 at 4:45 pm
mbautist
In your blog post, you pose the question:
“Is there such a thing as a ‘beautiful interaction’?”
In my opinion, I believe there is. However, I do want to point out my reaction focuses more on the human aspect of interaction as opposed to the device used for input. In your post, you focus on input devices, and how people interact with them such as video controllers. I think that the human body is amazing with a tremendous amount of capabilities. If you think about it, and how humans are able to react to a video game and hit a sequence of buttons on a controller to win a game, that in itself is mind blowing. I think that as humans, our ability to adapt and react to stimuli, whether digital or not, is beautiful. With digital technologies we tend to focus on the digital output, such as amazing screen graphics, sounds, or a winning score. We often ignore what it took to create those outputs.
In your post, you stated:
“Digital input devices in the past few decades, I think, have been almost solely oriented to be a means of getting something done, not a means of expressing oneself.“
I disagree. With this quote, you provided the example of someone playing Guitar Hero. Think about how people play games like Guitar Hero. If you watch them, you’ll often see the person bobbing their head to the music, pressing the fret buttons / strumming harder on intense parts of the songs. Is that not a form of expressing oneself? This guy, for example, is loving what he is doing and though his movements are a little erratic, I can find appreciation in watching him play.
I myself have always been amazed by guitar players and often watch their hands move across the fret board flawlessly. I think the movement and motion in their fingers is beautiful to watch. Paco de Lucia, for example, is a famous flamenco guitar player. While I find his music wonderful to listen to, he is also amazing to watch, even without sound. While he is using an analog guitar, he is still using his fingers an input and the movement of his fingers is captivating. In relation to the video you posted, if you put the video on mute and watch the movement of the Guitar Hero player’s fingers, I find a similar effect to watching analog guitar players. Here’s a video of Paco de Lucia, watch with and without the sound. I personally can find appreciation to him playing without the output of sound, just by watching how his fingers move. Can we not have the same appreciation on digital devices?
January 25, 2012 at 12:09 am
Leo
The difference between Paco de Lucia’s playing and the Guitar Hero person playing is that in Paco de Lucia’s case, the means in which he expresses himself has a direct effect on the output/result of his input interaction. With there being a direct connection between the two, beholding the means in which he expresses himself through his input interactions becomes all the more impressive, and, in my opinion, more aesthetically pleasing. This is because there are ramifications behind him using a poor form of self-expression (like poor technique) — a poor output/result, or poor sound.
With the Guitar Hero player’s playing, his skill level is impressive, but it comes across as a sort of “showboating” because regardless the amount of self-expression he puts into it, it does not directly translate his skill level into something meaningful. No matter how much technique, movement, skill, etc. he puts into the plastic instrument, the results are the same. A certain button being held, and the strum bar being strummed, all at the right time, no matter in what fashion, leads to the same sound effect and same validation (in the form of points) from the game.
Because of this, I argue that the significance behind the Guitar Hero player’s input interactions from the perspective of beauty and aesthetics becomes significantly less. There is no consequence for him if he has poor technique — the music notes still play the same. The existence of that consequence makes us appreciate Paco de Lucia’s playing more than the Guitar Hero player’s playing.
Seeing these two things, I want to make a distinction between having appreciation and having a fulfilling aesthetic experience. While I have appreciation and am impressed at the Guitar Hero player’s ability, I do not have aesthetic fulfillment from his input interactions. It’s impressive for sure, but it lacks a deeper sense of awe.
Whereas with Paco de Lucia’s playing, I have the appreciation AND the aesthetic fulfillment. I at least have a sense of the level of difficulty and complexity behind what he is doing. Because his self-expression through the guitar is reflected through the sound, I appreciate his ability and technique (i.e., his input interactions) more because it is as if he is communicating with me directly — not through words, but through his music.
So while you can say that the Guitar Hero player is expressing himself through his body movements, the input device itself is not translating that into anything meaningful. His input is not leading me to having a sense of him communicating his self-expression to me. Because the output remains the same, his technique of playing becomes unnecessary to the result, and thus, feels like showing off to some extent. Many times when you see someone like the Guitar Hero player playing so masterfully, many people will comment, “That person has no life.” or, “That person has too much time on his hands.” Would many people say the same about Paco de Lucia?
So to clarify, what I am hoping for in the future is that with future input devices, we will allow people to express themselves and have that expression be meaningful outside of only its action, but also in its output/result. In having self-expression through input having a direct effect on output/result, we can have more aesthetic appreciation of a user’s ability to express themselves.
January 30, 2012 at 4:16 pm
Matt Edwards
I have three questions that come to my mind from your conversation here, and I don’t necessarily think they have clear answers.
Who/What are the subjects of the interaction?
Who is judging the interaction’s beauty? Is it the person involved in the interaction, or an onlooker? It’s easy for *us* to draw a difference between a teen clicking away on a guitar controller and a guitarist carefully constructing a song. But is it possible that there is beauty for those who are actually performing these interactions?
Are these examples suitably comparable? Who is the intended audience in the case of either example?
What I’m floating back to is the initial premise that we, as interaction designers, should seek beauty in our designs. I’m not 100% sure I agree. Where is beauty created? Is that in a domain I can even affect?
February 5, 2012 at 8:58 pm
Leo
You’re quite right in saying that there probably aren’t clear answers to these questions.
I think the judges of an input interaction’s beauty could be the “interactor” him/herself, or both the interactor and any onlookers — I think it would depend on what kind of input interaction it is. (For example, if an interaction input device read an interactor’s mind, onlookers wouldn’t be able to see any interactive inputs, but might only see the output of them. Whereas with an interaction input device that can receive complex motions, onlookers would be able to see the interactor’s inputs and may get a sense of appreciation for them.)
I think if an interactive input device allowed for beautiful, expressive interaction, the “interactor” would have the freedom to develop a high level of skill to express themselves through the interaction. In doing so, they can get into somewhat of a “zone” or “flow” and have an aesthetic experience through that.
If the interactive input is one where onlookers can visibly see the interactor’s efforts and feel that the interactor is “in the zone” or “in a flow”, they can feel a strong appreciation for both the interactive input and the interactor.
I think I was incorrect to say that as interaction designers we should seek beauty in our designs. I think it’s better to say that it’s something we should seek to do whenever it is possible and whenever it can be appropriate.
Just as an expert craftsman can create a beautiful tool for use, I think interaction designers can create beautiful interaction input devices. Because of this, I think beauty is a domain that interaction designers can affect with regards to input interactions. However, it’s most definitely something that we can’t guarantee to all users.