COREY BOLING
CLASS 3:
Elevator Control Button
Assumptions: press 1x with index finger for 1 second for desired destination.
Context: used to both call elevator and to signal elevator as to which floor it should travel and open its doors.
How People Use It: There is a difference in usage patterns inside the elevator and outside. Outside users press and hold down the button for b/w 3-5 seconds (even after the indicator light has turned on). This particular elevator's doors shut VERY quickly between stops so regular inside users tend to wait to press the button for their desired floor until everyone has entered the elevator. Inside users use their thumbs, index fingers, middle fingers, elbows, shopping bags, etc. to press their respective button. Difficulties range from the visibility of the indicator light (did I press hard enough?) to the timing of the doors opening and closing. Additionally, locating one's desired floor is a bit of a hunt. The actual pushing of the button takes the least amount of time. Additionally, inside and outside users tend to press buttons that are already lit (as if to ensure their functionality). Overall, this observational exercise reminded me of Norman's arguments on the importance of visibiliy. Sure, elevator buttons have built in affordances that are easily interpreted. But if no one can locate their desired floor or if they can't see if the inidicator light has truly been pushed, then those affordances cant be acted upon. Ironically, ths particular elevator was in a residential building (20+ floors) and one can assume that its users operated these same elevators everyday (and still had difficulties). I have since compared this experience to the elevator system in Tisch as well as other NYU building only to witness increased lack of visibility - and therefore, functionality.
CLASS 1:
How would you define physical interaction? What makes for good physical interaction? Are there works from others that you would say are good examples of digital technology that are not interactive?
I agree that physical interaction should focus on the ways in which meaningful conversation is attained, however Crawford seemingly argues (and most do) that this conversation oscillates between the designer and the user. Alternatively, I would like to frame the designer-user dynamic as more of a converstaion starter, a catalyst designed to facilitate the users' engagement with the greater world with which they interact. If successful interactive design can allow a device to redefine itself as an intuitive necessity of a given era, then can't one make the case that the device is actually mediating a greater over-arching relationship between the user and the other devices/objects/choices with which the user interacts? How do the expectations, assumptions, and overall affordances that make up yesterday's technology allow us to engage with more than one particular device in the future? In short, does the successful design of one device allow us to better engage with other devices? What reprecussions does this theory have on the designers' side of the equation? I would argue that good physical interaction is a level of interactivity that plants the seeds for continued interaction outside of itself. Instead of asking how good design connects designers and users, shouldn't we be asking how the design of a single object can exponentially affect the way we engage with everything else. That's a conversation worth having.
