How can we sum up what we do? what are these systems we design? Below is a somewhat simplistic and schematic view of the problem, which may have some merits in that it provides a framework within which we can start to tackle the particular issues of our beloved discipline in a ‘formal’ manner! I’ve tried to use as less ‘key terms’ and to be as general as possible, and highlighted these in bold. Thus, hopefully a clear definition of each of these terms should allow us to dig deeper into the problems particular to interaction design!
Interactive systems are tools allowing users to manipulate, or to perform certain tasks on the properties of objects, represented within the system. The relationship between these objects and ‘reality’ is complex, and it could be argued that they form one of the core issues of interaction design. Indeed, these objects are often the representation of real-life objects, but not always. They can correspond to a unique physical object in the real world, or not.
The series of diagrams below is an attempt to formalise these relationships, and to give them names. I came up with the notions of direct representation, command (I’m not that happy about that one), augmentation and virtuality.
Direct Representation: The state of an object's property in reality is represented in the system.
Command: The state of an object's property in reality is affected by the state of its representation in the system.
Augmentation: Properties of an object that have no existence in reality are represented in the system.
Virtuality: An object that doesn't exist in reality is represented by the system.
If we take these various type of relationship into account, we could argue that the role of an interactive system would be to provide users with the most seamless, intuitive way to manipulate the objects it represents. Indeed, if we see interfaces as particular types of tools, interactive systems could be seen as the extension of the body of its users which allows them to perform particular tasks on these objects, or more precisely on certain properties of these objects.
Once such a basis is set, it becomes possible to conceptualise other aspects of interactive systems. A first step in such an endeavour would be to provide a precise definition of the various concepts on which this model relies: This will form the subject of future posts. Of course comments are welcome, as there may be a fault in my reasoning!
Related posts:
- Applying Conversation Analysis Concepts to Interaction Design?
- Interactionism as a Framework for Understanding User Interaction
- The Emergence of Meaning Through System Use: The central role of interaction and its implications in terms of design methodology
- Intertextuality and User interfaces as Relational Systems of Representations
- A Short, Practical Example of User Experience and Interface Design for an Online Drink Ordering Service