Poll: Interactivity in Design: A Public Query

[Joshimodo]

I'm a graphic designer, and I'm also currently doing a degree.

Beyond that, I'm a gamer - So naturally, I think interactivity is vitally important in today's world and thus vital to more or less any kind of design.

I'm currently writing a critical paper centred on the idea that interactivity is now a paramount aspect of design (not just graphic design), more so than any previous generation. To quote Dieter Rams (a man everyone should know of, not just designers):

Good design is innovative
Good design makes a product useful
Good design is aesthetic
Good design makes a product understandable
Good design is unobtrusive
Good design is honest
Good design is long-lasting
Good design is thorough, down to the last detail
Good design is environmentally-friendly
Good design is as little design as possible

Now, Rams' design philosophy rubbed off on the chap who designs Apple's products (as well as many other designers), which in turn influences those who attempt to imitate it, and as such led to the current state of design.

Let's focus on this:
Good design is unobtrusive

While I still believe it is a key element, I think it should be rephrased, as it appears that interactivity is now hugely important - Which unobtrusive design would not truly allow for.


Take YouTube, for example. It's a juggernaut of the industry, and despite changes in recent months that have left it slow and visually ugly, it's still a triumph of design. However, look at the design - Below the video, you have 2 hugely important aspects of YT - Like/Dislike, and Comments. It's prompts you to use it. It's a hotbed of dispute, arguments and stupidity, but it's encouraged. On a broader scale, everything is now user-orientated and has commenting systems, or Like/Dislike/Favourite systems. Facebook is another example. The Escapist has commenting, user profile commenting, awards, and so forth.



Now that likely poorly explained intro and examples are out of the way, let me ask you (both as a gaming community and general public) - Is interactivity important to you? Do you ever feel a website or service is diminished without a way to Like/Dislike, Share, or Comment immediately? Is the Like/Dislike function and it's ilk some kind of reflex inbuilt now?

TL,DR: Are interactivity and/or gameification very important aspects of modern designs?


Please vote, and explain your thoughts if possible! It'd be much appreciated.

 

[aba1]

I guess as multimedia designer I should weigh in on this. Interactivity is subjective to its environment. It has to be engaging but simple. If you have some complex thing that makes the user think they won't bother and likely even miss the point but done thing correct way it can leave a extremely long lasting impression. I don't think interactivity is necessary in all advertising / design or even most I just think it is a good way to set yourself apart from the crowd which is what advertising is all about.

The reason Youtube is still able to hold its ground even with poor design is simply because it is already so established people just go there regardless because they are simply used to it. People stick with what is familiar that is what product branding is so important.

 

[Joshimodo]

That's true about YouTube. In recent times, it's been awful - But it's sticking around because of it's tenure and grip on the web that it has.

In regards to advertising - While it's true it's how you step up and stand out from your contemporaries, but surely an interactive marketing design is a better choice overall? Think about it - Most people glaze over about 70% of directed advertising. While the subconscious effect may still be apparent, it holds no personal investment or interest in the content. Comparatively, ARG marketing for games as well as simple things such as Facebook signups (ME3 did this most recently) seem to drastically improve retention, at least in what I've observed.

Even something as simple as being able to talk to the game designers (or whoever is behind whatever product etc. is involved) improves influence, doesn't it?

 

[MrLlamaLlama]

Hey. Fellow degree-level graphic design student here.

From a design aspect, I don't really think interactivity should be pivotal to how something functions as said piece of design. (then again, I prefer print to digital) Often when I go to a site, I'm there for data: I'm looking up what a group of owls is called, or what that line from that song is. Even within social media, I'm only going beyond my wall on facebook to find out if x hot girl I like is going to town that night so I can decide whether or not to go aswell. The only other interactions are really basic, like responding to a forum (which i rarely do) or talk to someone who isn't picking up their phone. I'm not into the whole like / dislike / comment thing at all. If I have my opinion on something, I'm much more likely to spend my time thinking about it within the confines of my own mind - I'd probably be persuaded to share that opinion on-line if it wasn't just a bottomless pool of idiocy and un-caring-ness (idk the word).

But like I said, I'm more of a print guy. So I prefer something to be beautiful and functional in it's own right. Furthermore, and I know this isn't going to get me too far in this day and age, but I don't like people intervening. Not in a proud way, in a 'I want any fuck ups to be my fault' sort of way. I'd feel terrible if I designed the UI for youtube and people starting generally cussing it because the community is shit or something.

However, I'm not everybody and I realise that. I think user interactivity is becoming a far more important consideration in design, and designing the way in which users can interact is almost as important as the aesthetics of the thing.

I hope that helps dude, if not then I apologize for wasting your time.

 

[aba1]

That's true about YouTube. In recent times, it's been awful - But it's sticking around because of it's tenure and grip on the web that it has.

In regards to advertising - While it's true it's how you step up and stand out from your contemporaries, but surely an interactive marketing design is a better choice overall? Think about it - Most people glaze over about 70% of directed advertising. While the subconscious effect may still be apparent, it holds no personal investment or interest in the content. Comparatively, ARG marketing for games as well as simple things such as Facebook signups (ME3 did this most recently) seem to drastically improve retention, at least in what I've observed.

Even something as simple as being able to talk to the game designers (or whoever is behind whatever product etc. is involved) improves influence, doesn't it?

Yes it does assuming it is done properly but you have to consider what everyone is doing if everything is interactive than it could be the reverse where the static images hold more value since they require no work and get the advantage of standing out. You got to keep in mind people need to feel fairly engaged to bother with interactivity so if everything is interactive it will quickly become the norm and people wont bother. As it stands right now interactivity is defiantly a advantage assuming it is made well enough to be engaging to most people

 

[Joshimodo]

From a design aspect, I don't really think interactivity should be pivotal to how something functions as said piece of design. (then again, I prefer print to digital) Often when I go to a site, I'm there for data: I'm looking up what a group of owls is called, or what that line from that song is. Even within social media, I'm only going beyond my wall on facebook to find out if x hot girl I like is going to town that night so I can decide whether or not to go aswell. The only other interactions are really basic, like responding to a forum (which i rarely do) or talk to someone who isn't picking up their phone. I'm not into the whole like / dislike / comment thing at all. If I have my opinion on something, I'm much more likely to spend my time thinking about it within the confines of my own mind - I'd probably be persuaded to share that opinion on-line if it wasn't just a bottomless pool of idiocy and un-caring-ness (idk the word).

But like I said, I'm more of a print guy. So I prefer something to be beautiful and functional in it's own right.

I think user interactivity is becoming a far more important consideration in design, and designing the way in which users can interact is almost as important as the aesthetics of the thing.

Don't get me wrong, design should still remain about fluidity in communication combined with aesthetics. Form follows function and all that.

What I'm talking about isn't necessarily linked solely to digital, either - Print media and physical products that prompt interaction and engagement also factor in. The book "A Smile in the Mind" is practically composed of examples of that (if you don't have it and are a designer, shame on you!).

I wholly agree about the online aspect being ruined by the general populous, though.

Yes it does assuming it is done properly but you have to consider what everyone is doing if everything is interactive than it could be the reverse where the static images hold more value since they require no work and get the advantage of standing out. You got to keep in mind people need to feel fairly engaged to bother with interactivity so if everything is interactive it will quickly become the norm and people wont bother. As it stands right now interactivity is defiantly a advantage assuming it is made well enough to be engaging to most people

I'd figured that. Normality is dull, so having everything interactive to that degree would be counter-productive. However, what about gameification and so forth? Aside from games being fun, they rely on a number of hooks. Call of Duty's success relies almost entirely on them - RPG elements spamming meaningless numbers and icons to make a player feel better, for example. That positive feedback is already being used in things such as Fitocracy, and some workplaces are implementing game elements (beyond the archaic and obsolete leaderboards). One company recently (I don't recall which) tallied and leveled employees who used the stairs instead of the elevators, telling them at which point they had climbed the equivalent of Kilamanjaro, K2 and Everest etc.


http://www.fastcodesign.com/1669205/clever-game-turns-taking-the-stairs-into-a-hiking-competition-with-co-workers



Another example: