For these case studies, we decided to look at different types of interactions, rather than digital ones. We were asked to come up with one good example, as well as one bad example of 'haptic' interactions.
Bad Example (Motion Detection):
My bad example, is of some changing rooms that were at my gym back in Taupo. First you would open a door into a small corridor section, and then open another door into the main changing room. However, the lights didn't have switches, and were instead triggered and turned on when it sensed movement. The reason that I have put this into the bad example category is because of the delay in motion recognition.
Once you stepped foot into the pitch black corridor, you actually had enough time to find your way to the next door, and get inside the changing room before the lights started to flicker and turn on. Although it might not seem overly bad, having just that slight delay is so noticeable, and makes it appear as a bad haptic interaction.
The changing rooms are better off having the motion censored lights in the changing room, to avoid having people forget to turn off the lights. Therefore, less power will be wasted. However, the motion sensor would be a lot better off which a smaller delay, or do have the sensor at the first door rather than in the corridor.
Bad Example (Button):
Another bad example that deserves an honorable mention is the elevator that takes you up to the shop Football Central on Tory Street. Not only do the doors take forever to open and close (extremely slow speed), but there is also an unbelievably long and unnecessary delay when you get to the floor have chosen. As soon as you reach the desired level, the elevator seems to pause for at least 3 seconds, before jarring, and opening the doors at an agonizingly slow speed.
Good Example:
It was quite difficult to decide on a good interaction, as they generally go unnoticed or unappreciated due to their smoothness or efficiency of completing their intended task or action. The example I am going to use is will be the swipe-key system used at The Cube (Massey Accommodation). Each resident has a swipe tag which allows them by simply scanning their tag up against a small black box by the main entrance door. I feel like this interaction is nice and simple, and allows access only to those that stay there.
The small back swipe box detects the tags very easily as well, so even if the key is in your wallet, you can hold it the wallet (open) up against the swipe box and it will detect your key. Once the key is detected, the light on the box turns green, and then the doors open at a good speed.
The swipe tag system is quite a good way of ensuring security in the building, and it can even be manipulated to allow certain tags to access extra areas such as the staff room.
The fact that the swipe tags can be disabled so easily is a good way of ensuring that if a student happens to lose their swipe tag, the tag can just be disabled so that whoever picks up the key is unable to use it to get into the building.
Much like digital interactions, it seems a lot easier to notice the bad interactions, such as slow doors opening, light switch delays, or sensors not detecting movement in general. It's because we expect them to be efficient enough to allow us to continue on with our daily tasks without any bother, so as soon as we run into a bad interaction, it's easy to notice. In a way, the good interactions are those that go unnoticed; the ones that happen so smoothly and unconsciously that we don't even bat an eyelid.
No comments:
Post a Comment