Reading Response 5

Chapter 5: Interface Design

For this week's reading, I'd like to respond to the discussion between Ge and Perry about mapping and loss of intimacy between human player and instrument. I found this section really interesting in the way it draws a distinction between "traditional" (pg 236) interface design and interface design for a "tightly coupled interaction loop" (pg 237). In a traditional approach interface design, we mainly focus on the mapping of our input to our output (i.e. how we should use a given input to produce a certain output).

However, in interface design for a tightly coupled interaction loop, the feedback and feel of the instrument is a critical element to consider. In other words, it considers how the output + feedback will affect the user, and consequently the user's next action/input (human in the loop!). According to Perry, considering feedback/feel of the instrument is critical to preventing a "loss of intimacy" (pg 238) between the human player and the instrument. I think a good way to understand this concept better is by designing an instrument with the "traditional" approach to interface design, seeing why it might not feel very "intimate", and then redesign the instrument for a tightly coupled interaction loop.

Lets say we want to design a new instrument that has 8 buttons, but we want to map these 8 buttons to the entire range of a piano (A0-C8). So we design a mapping such that each button is assigned to 1/8th of the entire range (button 1 to A0:G1, button 2 to G#1:F#2 etc). When presssed, a button outputs a random note within its associated range. And for the sound we'll choose a sine wave, that plays for ~5 seconds. We'll only use touch-sensitive buttons on the instrument, and output the sound through a speaker that's 10 feet away.

This instrument was designed with a traditional approach, where I considered what inputs I wanted (8 buttons), what outputs I wanted (sine waves covering the range of a piano), and designed a mapping (random selection within a 1/8th range for each button). However, this instrument wouldn't feel very intimate to play for a few main reasons.

1. The touch-sensitive buttons don't provide much haptic feedback, so its difficult to feel when you have played a button, and accidental button-presses are easier. This is especially true without any visual feedback (which is the case for our instrument).
2. The sounds produced are not usual/learnable/repeatable. Since the pitch is selected from a random range, a player cannot reproduce sounds they play with this instrument, and only have a very rough/imprecise control over pitch. Additionally, the sounds play for a set duration of 5 seconds. This lack of controllability/responsiveness in pitch and duration might be frustrating if the player has a vision for the sound they want to create.
3. The output sound is coming through a distant speaker, so it doesn't feel like the instrument is physically connected to the sounds it is producing (the instrument lacks a "sense of embodiment" (pg 238)). This might be jarring and create a disconnect for the player.

What if we were to design this instrument for a tightly coupled interaction loop? We might decide that:

1. We should use clicking buttons to give the player tactile feedback.
2. We can map each button to a specific note (e.g. the middle note within each range), and add a pitch bend slider, so that the player can move between notes within a range at will. We might also play notes for however long the user hold down the button for, so they have control over duration.
3. We can add a speaker directly to the instrument (or at least close the distance between our speaker and the instrument somehow) to make the instrument feel more physically connected to the sounds it produces.