An emotional journey with interactivity

Step 1- Frustration

“the supposed interactivity of the digital age is a myth because new media technologies are often no more interactive than their analogue counterparts” (Gane and Beer 90).

I definitely went on a journey with this activity. I found myself feeling really frustrated trying to understand Wireframe from this tutorial. Ironically, I found myself wishing it was more “interactive.” I wanted audio, I wanted to click on something other than the left and right arrows. I wanted to see animation. For me, this was very cool media because I was having to fill in a lot of the gaps and conceptualize the ideas in my own mind.

Step 2-Excitement

“For Kiousis suggests, by contrast, that the experience of interactivity may not simply be the product of technical systems, but may also relate to the user’s sense of this interaction and to the desired effects he/she wishes to produce from his/her machines” (Gane and Beer 93).

• 

• 

Here, I started actually getting it! I think that once I began to “interact” with the wireframe on Gliffy, the ideas started to gel and the original concept that I was having trouble grasping (just by reading the tutorial) was starting to take shape for me. I’m not sure how I would categorize this media, however. I felt that it was very interactive, but I do have to think about Manovich’s concepts of the “predefined pathway” as the technology has set menu options to choose from.

It reminded me a lot of the software that I use to create yearbook spreads in my Photojournalism class at school. A bit of muscle memory started to come into play. This makes me think about how exposure to different technologies “trains” us in terms of our interactivity with new technologies.

Step 3-Digging Deeper

“Such media are interactive but only in a limited way, for rather than really engaging us for the most part they prompt us to select from menus or follow predefined pathways” (Gane and Beer 93).

• 

• 

After my fun with Gliffy, I started to think about the interactivity I experience on Facebook. Looking at this section of my Facebook page and my wireframe had me thinking about the quote from Gane and Beer above. I think this is a great example of the “illusion” of interactivity. I certainly have the choice to click on these profiles and joins these groups, but they are also profiles and groups that Facebook have “offered” me. The technology is making more choices for me than I had really thought about before.

From here…

I think I’m going to think about the relationship between interactivity and interface. Since I chose interface as my focus for my Box Logic Project, I’d like to think about how these two concepts are similar, how they interact with one another, and where they differ. At first, I was sort of seeing them as the same thing, but I think the nuanced differences are starting to play out a little for me. An interface, I think, can have an effect on the levels of interactivity between a user and a technology. And creators of interfaces will need to think about the level of interactivity they want in a technology. Just thoughts…

Works Cited

Casali, Davide. “Different Ways to Tell a Story.” LinkedIn SlideShare. 05 Mar. 2013. 23 Feb. 2019 <https://www.slideshare.net/folletto/introduction-to-building-wireframes/13-DIFFERENT_WAYS_TO_TELL_A&gt;.

Facebook. 2019. 23 Feb. 2019 <https://www.facebook.com/&gt;.

Gane, Nicholas, and David Beer. “Interactivity.” New media: The key concepts. Oxford: Berg, 2008. 87-102.

Gliffy, Inc. Gliffy. 23 Feb. 2019 <https://go.gliffy.com/go/html5/launch&gt;.