On 1/9/08, alex <alex_at_lurk.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 11:13 +0100, Artem Baguinski wrote:
> > i was trying to contrast interactive and non-interactive (automated).
> >
> > the most interactive way to change all foo's to bar's would be to find
> > them in the text, delete and type new values in.
> >
> > less interactive would be to ask editor to replace them and let it ask
> > you about each foo.
> >
> > least interactive and most automated is to ask to replace all.
>
> As you say this is the definition of interaction used in HCI, but I
> think what came out of another discussion here is that perhaps this is
> not 'true' interaction...
the other day i was walking with my son the "Art in Nature" route [1].
oh, great, the picture on [1] is exactly what i was gonna talk about,
i hope the image isn't randomized or something :)
when we were passing this tree the little guy was already tired (i
think it's the last work in the route), so when he saw it he said
something to the amount: "But this is not a 'real' tree" -- "Well, - i
said, - it's art, it's never 'real'". Which made me cringe the moment
i said it, but anyway, what I meant was - art is always a
representation.
Similarly, computer systems are representations of something. You can
make a computer to represent interactivity. You might say it isn't
'true' interactivity, but it still MEANS true interactivity. Circles
that we draw with computers aren't 'true' circles, but we do call them
circles.
[1]:
http://www.natuurkunstdrenthe.nl/index_en.php?id=en/home
Received on Wed Jan 09 2008 - 11:20:54 GMT