Imaginary Interactivity

Source: Flickr

It took five years. Only five years, that is, for people to change their expectations of how displays are supposed to work.

Case in point: at the Scientifica, our booth had several slideshows running on iMacs – obviously without any keyboards or mice around to interact with. So far, so normal. But then, something funny happened.

People would stand in front of those iMacs and then … touch the screen. Five years after the first iPhone has been introduced, and people are now expecting displays to be touch-sensitive. It wouldn't matter how old they were: children did it, but seniors, too.

Now you would think that people would realise soon enough that this was just an iMac, with no touch screen abilities.But because the slideshow was still running, they kept on pushing things on the screen, repeatedly, for surprisingly long periods of time. Why would they do that?

I assume that not all of those visitors are necessarily familiar with a tablet or smartphone device. In Switzerland, another touch device is even more ubiquitous: the ticket vending machines at the train stations. The touch screen of those devices is notoriously unreliable, often requiring several attempts until the input gets registered. What follows is that most people are actually used to non-responsive touch devices, and they know what they have to do in that case: try again.

Which leads to this observation I made at our booth: People would approach an iMac with the slideshow running. They would touch the screen. Nothing happened. They would wait a moment, then try again, touching the screen again. At this point, the slideshow would advance automatically, giving the impression that now the touch had actually registered, and the iMac would react to the person's input. The person was now convinced that they were in front of a touch screen, and tap the screen again. Nothing happens. They'd tap again. Again a bit harder – and the slideshow would advance again. Success! Let's tap again!

This interaction was completely imaginary, powered entirely by the user's assumption that what was happening on the screen was caused by his actions. Since we are all used to inferior devices, to delays, to glitches and hick-ups, to Spinning Beach Balls of Death, we don't expect our actions to have immediate effects anymore. No matter how delayed a possible feedback is, we assume it is caused by our actions, even if that's not the case.

So how is that related to game design? Clearly, you could create some really evil games, which leads the players to believe that whatever they do, they can somehow influence the outcome, when in fact it doesn't. It's not like this hasn't been done before. One of the most evil games is based on that principle: slot machines. But I bet this isn't the only device that gives the illusion of interactivity.