The Language of Design

It’s hard to go a day on the floor without hearing the word ‘interactive.’ I suppose that isn’t such a revolutionary statement bearing in mind that I do attend the Interactive Telecommunications Program. Yet, it is fascinating to hear how the word is tossed and bounced around. Interaction, as used, often times means little more than an LED glowing as your hand runs over it. Not to say that there haven’t been beautiful and innovative installations making use of such technology, but one  wonders if such a piece is truly interactive.

Dr. Paul Pangaro emphasizes that their is indeed a difference between interactivity and reactivity. More importantly, it is increasingly important to understand and highlight the differences between the two.  Pangaro, a cybernetisist, describes the language for analyzing how things interact. He uses illustration to great effect in demonstrating the looping nature of interaction. This looping behavior determines the on-going dynamics of a reciprocal interaction. Interaction requires the flexibility for changing inputs and outputs. A set of pre-determined outputs that do not change according to corresponding changes in input behavior cannot count as interaction.

Architectural Digest recently republished an article highlighting how language can be abused in design. Labeling everything interactive, for example, undermines a deeper understanding of the varying degrees of interactivity.  By limiting our ability to compare and discuss design, we hinder our ability to innovate in the spaces exposed by our comparisons.  Therefore,  as designers it is important to analyze both purpose and result in terms which express meaningful information about the design in question.