Attached Link: Please click here to take the questionaire.

hey everyone,

I have constructed a questionaire as part of my graduation workshop in college. I have basically only a few days to do some sort of research on how people percieve interactive media.
I'm trying to find out what people can connect to, which emotions play a role in this, how useful people find things, how amusing, if the amount of actual interactivity always relates to percieved interactivity etc. etc.
So to at least get some sort of a basic view on this, i constructed this questionaire and i would very much appreciate if you could take the time to fill it out.
There's some interesting things in there if i may say so myself, so you might enjoy it a bit too :-)

Sorry for putting such an OT topic on here, but im trying to get as many reactions as i can before thursday afternoon 5pm and time is so short that i just have to spam a little to promote my assignment :-P The more feedback i get, the better i can draw conclusions.
Thanx a lot for your participation!

(_/)
(='.'=)
(")(")This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.

will check this out tonight from home

Pass no temptation lightly by, for one never knows when it may pass again!

Well, reckon I've given you some thoughts to play with Ray :) good luck. will we get to see your conclusions?

----------

Toolset: Blender, GIMP, Indigo Render, LuxRender, TopMod, Knotplot, Ivy Gen, Plant Studio.

yea ill make sure to let u know the conclusions :) thanx!

(_/)
(='.'=)
(")(")This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.

I don't think I understood the question....................

Available on Amazon for the Kindle E-Reader

All the Woes of a World by Jonathan Icknield aka The Bryster

And in my final hours - I would cling rather to the tattooed hand of kindness - than the unblemished hand of hate...

Sent in a response.

Pass no temptation lightly by, for one never knows when it may pass again!

Done.

"Reinstall Windows" is NOT a troubleshooting step.

done - hope it helps.

Experience is no substitute for blind faith.

http://avalon2000.livejournal.com/ - My Art Blog

http://jeferies.jalbum.net/Richard%20Jeferies%20Future%20Perfect/

Quote - I don't think I understood the question....................

which question did you not understand?

(_/)
(='.'=)
(")(")This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.

@everyone;

Thanx a lot! Your input defenitely helps!

(_/)
(='.'=)
(")(")This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.

Wow that was a tough questionaire. Hope I passed the test.
Is it just me or is Alan rude and obnoxious?
I want a multi-touch screen!

Ang, you're not the only one to say alan is rude! apparently many more people get annoyed... I think its due to the fact that he answers unfriendly to some questions and also because he changes topics often. Plus its seemingly impossible to have a real discussion with him. Still, the technology is promising in my opinion :-)

(_/)
(='.'=)
(")(")This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.

Apple touch interactivity:

Average score: 4.8

People see the interactivity of this device as a given. Hardly needing explanation the hands-on approach has everyone convinced of rich interactive potential.

Apple touch influence:

Average score: 4.5

Being literally able to control things with your hands, people have the feeling of total control being literally at their fingertips. Only doubts raised are with the interaction design of software utilizing this technology, the possibilities of the software are undisputed.

Apple touch usefulness:

Main use lay in creative programs and programs with simple interfaces. Concern rises about ease of use and if it will still be intuitive for more difficult tasks.

Interesting extra point; multiple people point out it might help against lazy mouse behavior.

Apple touch Emotion:

Generally excited and intrigued. Also the device is associated with a relaxed attitude.

---

LED interactivity:

Average score: 3.5

Interactivity is only kept up by the idea that the table does nothing until you interact with it. The lack of diversity causes failure to inspire.

LED influence:

Average score: 2.6

People don’t feel like they have much control or can create very diverse effects.  People seem to judge influence not only by immediate result, but also by the diversity of the results they can create.

LED usefulness:

Subtle low-level entertainment use, like a bar. But other than that, there’s little enthusiasm. The device fails to impress. Sort of like a lava lamp/table combination.

LED emotion:

Slight amusement, but of a very short duration. Fails to keep interest.

---

Community interactivity:

Average score: 3.4

Computer-generated interactivity seems of less importance to people then human interaction. However human interaction is not as strongly associated with interactive media, the focus is more based around social interaction. Human interaction, even if induced by a medium, is not easily recognized as interactive media.

Community influence:

Average score: 3.3

Influence is easily rated, yet apparently, hard to describe with reason. The amount of influence is judged by gut-feeling. I suspect it has to do with a combination of ease-of-use and the affinity with the concept.

Community usefulness:

Skeptics find this rater useless, fans consider it of much more use. There’s little in between. It’s a love it or hate it thing apparently.

The most popular mentioned uses are international friends, and social contact for people that live in isolated places and/or can’t get out of the house much.

Some consider it a dating resource, often, strangely, as replacement for real-life dating.

Community emotion:

Skeptics find this rater useless, fans consider it of much more use. There’s little in between. It’s a love it or hate it thing apparently. Those who love it connect it to loads of emotions, usually those generated by human interaction with other people on the community.

---

Chat bot Interactivity:

Average score: 2.9

Surprisingly people find chat bots not to be all that interactive! While with community websites people associated the human contact and conversation as the main interactivity boost, conversation with a computer is not considered very interactive.
The perception of interactivity gets obscured by the fact that the chat bot gets compared to real humans and fails to provide anything but shallow conversation and swift topic changes.

Chat bot Influence:

Average score: 2

People don’t feel like they have much influence at a chat bot at all. Even though the bot responds directly to their input, the quality is not quite human enough to convince. Bots tendency to analyze keywords rather than actual meaning give the feeling that the bot is not really listening, thus reducing the sense of control.

Chat bot usefulness:

Surprisingly people do see potential in this technology. In its current state its often mentioned it could be used for simple standardized help services. Things that don’t really require intensive conversation or thought.

Others are interested in the human aspect, but believe the technology is by far not advanced enough to use it right now.

Chat bot emotion:

People react intrigued, immediately feel the need to test it and judge how human it reacts. Though the opinions about the quality of conversation are quite negative, there is a sense of interest. Only a few find the bots lack of understanding to be annoying or even offending.

Bot conversation versus human conversation:

People almost always assign bots a personality, even after only a few minutes of conversation. However they still find human conversation more interactive, purely because of the better  quality of communication.

Bot to bot conversation:

Interestingly people find bot-to-bot conversation to hardly be interactive. Interactivity must include a human factor or a purpose. A few people think it could eventually be used to have bots share communicative skills, but most find the idea rather meaningless.

---

Heineken Matrix Interactivity:

Average score: 2.7

People don’t find it particularly strongly interactive, mostly because there’s not much they can do.

Heineken Matrix Influence:

Average score: 2.7

Most people don’t feel like they have much influence, others strangely experience a strong amount of control because they ‘make’ the site send them something on their mobile.

Heineken Matrix Usefulness:

People appreciate the technological aspect but aren’t particularly impressed by this specific concept. It’s not quite rich enough and the gambling aspect throws them off.

Heineken Matrix Emotion:

Mixed emotions. Some find it particularly fun, others are much more critical about the marketing aspect and the fact that it costs money to send a txt while you might not be guaranteed to win anything.

---

Cinema interactivity:

Average score: 3.7

People consider this fun and appreciate the fact that it involves a whole crowd. Most perceive this to add to the interactivity of it all.

Cinema influence:

Average score: 3.7

Though individual influence within a crowd might be little, people see the crowd aspect as such an integrated part of the concept that they rate influence by the fact u participate with the crowd and the effect the whole crowd has on the game.

Cinema usefulness:

People are often pointing out this kind of technology could work for crowd-control. Any situation where you want to keep a crowd from getting bored.

Cinema emotion:

Fun and excitement! People would love to try this out. The crowd aspect just adds to the fun.

---

Active/Passive:

People seem to be largely undecided which of the two is generated by interaction and which is designed. Some guess it right, some guess it wrong, most simply can’t tell.

It seems that the amount of abstraction confuses people. Some prefer to assign randomness to interaction, others prefer to look for a relation.

It seems the perception of interaction requires a sense of control. If no easily recognizable link between action and reaction can be found, the perceived interaction is gone.

Active/Passive Influence:

People don’t really care if they can figure out what the relation is between their action and the reaction of the system, on the condition that the end result is appealing. When faced with abstraction, aesthetics become more important. A vague sensation of interactivity becomes more easily appreciated when it’s part of something aesthetically pleasing. If the aesthetics don’t please, the appreciation is gone.

Active/Passive Usefulness:

Mostly of artistic use, also interesting to study this further. Some people think there might be a higher purpose for systems like this, mainly to research unconscious or highly complex subtle interaction patterns.

Active/Passive Emotion:

Enjoyment, “this is kind of strange”, curiosity.

---

**Most interesting:
**An overwhelming majority finds the touch screen most interesting.
Hands-on approach seems very popular.

Touch screen: 11
Alan: 1
Cinema: 1
Light/AV: 1

**Most fun:
**The majority finds the cinema game the most fun. The crowd aspect really seems to add to the amusement.
The touch screen gets quite a few votes too.
Also, interestingly, some people experience the light sculptures as the most fun! Considering the generally slightly unsure opinions about the interactivity, influence, or usability, I can only assign this to the aesthetic qualities.

Touch screen: 4
Cinema: 8
Light/AV: 2

**Most useful:
**The touch screen wins hands-down on usefulness. Nothing seems able to compete.

Touch screen: 12
Community: 1

**Most Favourite:
**It’s getting rather boring announcing the results, but touch screen wins once again.. Also the cinema game is popular.

Touch screen: 8
Cinema: 3
Community: 1
Light/AV: 1

**Most original:
**The originality award goes to the light/audio-visual installations. Though the interactive experience isn’t all that rich, people like its uniqueness.

Touch screen: 2
Light/AV:6
Cinema: 3
LED table: 1

**Most innovative:
**Touch screen is considered the most innovative. It seems people really cannot wait to try it out! Further kudos go to most of the other projects except the LED table.

Touch screen: 7
Light/AV: 1
Cinema: 2
Community: 1
Alan: 1**
**

---

Conclusion:

Important factors for acceptance and enjoyment of interactive experience:

-          Hands-on approach.

-          Crowd/community cooperation experience.

-          Surprise-factor.

-          Obvious commercial use  makes people much more critical.

-          Richness and variation enhance experience.

-          The more individual the experience, the more important the sense of control becomes.

-          Artistic qualities reduce critical behavior.

 

(_/)
(='.'=)
(")(")This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.

Those are my findings so far :-D thanx for all the feedback ;-) I'll check back if more people fill this in, I might eventually run into more interesting information :-) So far teach seemed impressed!

(_/)
(='.'=)
(")(")This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.

Did it have to be so long?
I'd go with the touchscreen ftw. It's the most flexible, since what it does is all based on software. But some of the other stuff still has potential depending on how its used.

---

Barbequed Pixels?

Your friendly neighborhood Wings3D nut.
Also feel free to browse my freebies at ShareCG.
There might be something worth downloading.

Well i figured since i only had 2 days i'd get as much a variety of feedback as possible from the few people i could expect to fill it in on such short notice ;-)

(_/)
(='.'=)
(")(")This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.