Respond to 1 motivation in 3 different designed environments.
Maintain comparable attributes of experience across all 3.

Motivation: To conquer someone passive aggressively.

Environments:

Experience: Snarky, “gotcha!”

While working through this interactive concept some ideas to keep in mind are:

Passive Aggression = deformed representation of competition.

Must be tantalizing enough to open.

Multiple reads

Uncertainty

Tension

Anticipation

Reward

Opportunity for failure

Risk

Active participants

Strategy

Self fulfilling

A great new game that completely exploits the various inputs of the iPhone / iPod touch to create a compelling experience.

Most of the game is played by tilting and turning the iphone to effect the game space and allow your “Rolando” to roll through the various puzzles.

Fun. Simple. and Engaging… and it looks great to.

How long will it take for some of these mechanics to move from gaming/novelty to actually being part of normal interaction?

With all the discussion about how increasingly brief communication is driving our culture straight to hell, its nice to see an article that finds another perspective.

In he most recent issue of WIRED this article made me see Facebook as the constant witty status updates it really is.

While I am in complete agreeance that the tangled landscape of media is forcing individuals to at least be aware of increased refrences, it hardly gaurantees insightful humor. For every FML that mkes me laugh out loud there is another video of a baby pointing at a camera…

It was created by making a ‘jig’ by where length is related to duration of play, height is related to the proximity of player, and line count is directly related to ‘trules’(tools and rules).

While it was mildly successful, applying it to a timeline muddied the idea of duration and seems to be a major problem… Look for my 2nd give it a go…

Recently I came across a sweet little diddy for the iPhone /iPod Touch. If you can download the trial app and give it a whirl.

The application RjDj uses all fo the input devices of the iphone includeing the accelerometers, microphone, and touch screen to create atmosphereic sound on the fly.

It uses the mic to pick up ambient sounds, lets you scratch and add rythms by shaking and control things on the fly with your fingers.

While its usefulness is debatable it incorporates some interesting concepts. If design is contextual and is being encountere from various positions, how can I create interfaces that absorb and reflect those enviornments that are destined to shift?

Just gets me thinking…

For starters, YES, a face is an Interface. Actually it was probably the first interface.

I think as we move to carving out a space for further investigation it is important to think of interfaces along a spectrum from simple and crude to complex. I do believe that simple objects have simple interfaces. I’m probably a little sympathetic to the product and material designers that have spent many hours sculpting forms and selecting materials in an effort to create a curated experience. We also encounter much more complex interfaces that include Operating Systems, Facebook, etc…

While these are defined by specific intentions of individuals inputting information and receiving some sort of output in return, if we do not account for devices that require less conscious interaction we are limiting our scope to a very narrow set of experiences. Trying to define ‘interface’ has raised a number of questions that equally as difficult. Particularly what is the purpose of interface? If an interface is created to facilitate an experience, even the most mundane I think that this spectrum of complexity has to be acknowledged.

I’m sure this will be an ongoing investigation/thread throughout the semester so I’ll be interested in seeing what other insights and opinions present themselves.