learning from las vegas

i run into a friend’s post that showed a project on wine bottle finding through RFIDs.

as cute and engaging the mock-up is, it made me wonder about something else, a side effect of interaction design: that of ‘playability’ for now (not playfulness, which seems to define ‘play’ as the center of attention, indulge me).

there has been enough critic about the Mac OS X Dock for so many time, yet everybody acknowledges its strongly marketing-oriented side: that of entertaining and engaging the user (towards securing a sell?). and it succeeds mostly, in my opinion, because it shows that an OS GUI can be ‘fun’ (something every other OS seem to have tried to discredit with all efforts possible). though it might be a very poor example (the Dock fails in so many other regards), it shows that side effect interaction design has as a possibility.

if you’re a fan of video games, you might not be too surprised. video games were for a while one of the principal arena for interface-based evolution on computer design. why? it might be because gamers were avid and picky and relentless when it came to deciding on the ultimate interactive experience. response times, accuracy and realness were (and are) defining factors when it comes to choose a video game. if the celica gt does not steer as it does in the hands of colin rae, then we better buy doom III.

on the other side, haven’t you notice the sudden rise of interactive art everywhere? i bet my mojito it hs to do with the high entertaining factor these exhibitions hold and exploit. sometimes it is like going to the county fair arcade with all those haunted-houses-like attractions and led-light-driven stomach-revolting devices. even though you don’t care much about what’s on the artist mind, you might have a good time there: touch the screen and it all lights up… step on the squares and you can create music… move around and the screen will dance with color lines… well, sure, i’m describing fun-inducing gadgets, but then where’s the line between interactive art and interactive toys? let alone the one between toys and interaction design research.

even google, the epitome of sober web interfaces, puts a humorous logo now and then.

so why not exploiting it? isn’t that part of the user experience? isn’t that the user experience as well? of course, you want it to work well and precise, to accomplish something, to make people’s lives easier and more meaningful, but it won’t hurt if the user has a great time while using it, will it?

sometimes it gives me the impression that being boring is part of being useful, even in computer interfaces where there’s an infinite spectrum of possibilities.

perhaps coming from architectural background (as in buildings, not the other kind) it is a given for me: spaces have to work, but they have to be pleasing and accommodating. both at the same time. if not, well, you might not sell it to the client, cause he knows he’ll spend a lotta time in there.

there was a fantastic magazine in the ‘90s called PLAY (i might be mistaking). nonetheless, it is the most beautiful title (and accurate for the time) for a magazine that dealt with interaction design. after all, when it is really good, it feels like you’re playing.