Let's see how an environment responds to my fist in your face!

Krueger’s article, “Responsive Environments” begins with his description of his own work on creating environments that respond to participant action and follows his a description of how he believes human-computer interaction should be and how it can contribute to many different fields. Krueger’s projects have followed a theme in which participants enter a room with pressure sensitive flooring, and a computer responds to the participant’s actions in different ways. The first project that Krueger was a part of was GLOWFLOW (a computer responded to participant footsteps by creating sounds and lights, but the effects were delayed, so the participant had no idea of their impact on the environment). Krueger evolved that idea with METAPLAY (an artist in one room interacted with a participant in another by drawing images that would be projected into the room that the participant was in). This expanded on GLOWFLOW by adding an element of interactivity between the participant and the environment, because (s)he could interact with the artist, influencing different creations. PHYSICSPACE was similar to GLOWFLOW, but the participants were aware of how their footprints affected different sounds and how they could influence them with their movements. MAZE used physical movement to control an avatar to navigate through a maze, and VIDEOPLACE (a work in progress) will allow video interaction between people in different rooms.

Krueger makes the argument that the response is the medium saying that it “has the potential of being more rich and variable in some ways, than reality itself” (384). He claims that with the variability of video production, a person can interact with the environment more fully because the avatar can, for example, be shrunken down, fly, grow, flip/rotate, etc. He also emphasized that it is not the attractiveness of the visual/auditory response that is important, but that the response establishes a relationship between the observer and the environment, which is what Krueger calls, “the central theme” (386).

From his argument, Krueger risks criticism from those that believe that a more visually appealing environment is more important than the response itself. Krueger states that the means of output are not nearly as important, saying, “it may be desirable that the output not qualify as beautiful in any sense as that would distract from … the relationship established between the observer and the environment” (386).

Given that Krueger has quoted much funding from the University of Wisconsin over the course of 30 years, it can be assumed that he has conducted much research at the university and is probably a faculty member (379, 380, 384). The intended audience of this article are those that hold stake in the future of teleconferencing, because he makes several references to the field stating how his research advances the current standard providing “an infinitely richer interaction than Picturephone allows” (388).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Throughout my reading of this article, I had trouble understanding what Krueger meant by “Response is the medium.” It was not until I finished and began to think of relevant examples that I came to understand how attractive computer response can be. It is a concept that is now being fully developed and helps to make current forms of new media seem archaic and dull. Applications of response can be seen in video games, personal computing and artificial intelligence.

The first example that really made me believe how much of an effect computer response has on a medium is an analytical viewing of the current video game console war. There was a drastic break off this generation, when Nintendo decided to take their console in a new direction. Last generation was all about graphical improvement, which was not Nintendo’s strong suit, so with the release of their console in 2006 (officially dubbed as the Wii), users were introduced to a new kind of console gaming. Gamers are no longer restricted to the two control stick scheme, but now use a motion sensitive controller that responds to the users’ movements. Now, playing digital tennis is no longer dependent on button mashing, but requires a flick of the wrist in order to make the onscreen avatar swing the racket. This can make gaming more interactive and makes one feel like they are actually accomplishing something when they play. Even though other systems like the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 are more powerful, having games that display better graphical technology, the Nintendo Wii has by far been the better selling console. The success of the Wii is proof that Krueger is right in his assertion that response is the medium.

This idea can also be applied to personal computing, where multi-touch technology is becoming the next big thing. Though the technology is relatively old, the new applications for it are becoming immensely popular. Apple has seen great success with their iPhone and iTouch, and other companies have been bringing in the use of touch technology. More applications of this tech can be seen in the following video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2Kn2HKCWqs&feature=fvw

The response from the computer is shifting from mouseular point and click operations to physical touch and move gestures. These transparent interactions make computers more approachable and easy to use.

Finally, computer response is a very important application in the development of Artificial Intelligence (AI). It is a very popular research opportunity to make computers seem more human. If computers can respond to people humanistically, it is the ultimate form of computer transparency. This transparency comes from the way the computers respond to human action. Some example can be seen in the following videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9ByGQGiVMg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdEoD10-Uvk&feature=related

The success and attraction of these technologies is because of the response, which shows that Krueger has made some accurate assertions.

I propose the following discussion questions:

1. This kind of technology is a little scary to me, because it is possible that with complete transparency, people could forget that they are interacting with computers. Are my fears at all justified, or is the development of AI a masterful accomplishment that should be welcomed? What kind of things could go wrong with the development of AI?

2. In what ways do these technologies improve the humanistic quality of life? In what ways do they worsen it?

3. Many scientists agree that there are technologies that never should have been created (ie atomic/hydrogen bombs). Could the development of AI have similar ramifications? Should we develop it just because we can?