When I was doing this looking outwards, I am kind of naturally re-define interactivity in my mind. I consider from large dimension of interactivity to the tiny fine interactive experience. I also think about the necessity of this interactivity and human senses.
The examples as follows are focused on the topics above.
Driveless Car – Interact or Not
One day in the near future, we will not driving and the car will drive us to where we want. I am thinking two things: one is whether or not people will miss the lost feeling of driving a vehicle; another is that people will do on there driveless cars. With the coming of driveless car, people’s interaction with car will all change. People may do the work, hangout on g+, or set around drinks coffee.
In this sense, some missing interaction may be a good thing; while I am sure, this field interactivity is to be defined.
The first hologram example is not extremely big, but my point is to put interactivity on an urban level. Mash up element in the living world and make something tangible is the most accessable way for people to interacte with. From this example I come up with the thought that the straight-forward playfulness is the core of tangible interaction.
Another example is the creep soft robot. people are not touching it, but people controls it. Sometime people may not controls it, and it will go on its own way. From this example i understand dimension/material/behavior contribute to interactivity.
It seems that we have over use our virtual senses with the advantage of screen displays. With apple’s extraordinary iphone and ipad, interaction and intelligence is greatly enabled in artifacts. However, interaction overwhelmingly based on single senese is not intuitive. I therefore list human senses as my third topic. I am very optimistic about next generation’s interaction maybe somethign we now called TUI- tangible user interface.