For me it’s always interesting to revisit past passages that I have read in the past. I read Jeff’s commentary on Tractinsky last year in Foundations. As I read this paper for the second time, I revisited what I thought was important at the time. I underlined different definitions and other important points I must have found important at the time. In my memory, I remember being struck by Jeff’s argument about how Tractinsky didn’t stick to his dictionary definition and how Jeff articulated his critique of Tractinsky, focusing on the information processing theory.

This time, I’m more drawn to the ending of the paper where Jeff mentions

But given that we are in HCI and interaction design, it would seem that interactive, rather than visual, aesthetics would be the target.

I found this interesting primarily because for as much as we have talked about aesthetics in this course it is usually in the context of other domains, such as architecture, film, literature, and etc. Maybe this is me thinking at this moment, but I have tended to think about aesthetics within those previous contexts, but not interaction. Certainly, I have thought about this is a good interaction and this is a bad interaction, but it’s not something I would use in the same word as aesthetics in the same meaning as a film aesthetic. I’m not sure where I’m going with this thought, but I know that this aspect is certainly different from what we have previous read. I’m interested in exploring this area further and while the paper does hint at. It is only towards the end of the commentary that Jeff discusses interactive aesthetics briefly in, where Jeff mentions three research themes: medium-specific theories of interactive aesthetics, design and research methodologies, and specific aesthetic design domains.