>Interaction, a 90's buzzword simply means responding. With the net, not
>only is the response fast, but oft there is a human -- not a computer --
>responding.
If I though only about the process aspect of interaction, then I would
agree that interaction is stimulus-response/stimulus to another response.
This operational definition of interaction makes the assumption that the
content of the interaction is not relevant. Depending on what you wanted
to study about interaction, this definition would be hamstrung. I can't
recall the author who talked about communication channels (Thompson?,
Harris?), but as you change the technology of communication (face to face
vs. phone vs. email), yes you change the speed, but you begin to introduce
design problems that end up reducing the message's ability to "make its
point". I.E. in Email, you end up having to repeat what is earlier said
(the carat'd message above) in order to provide your reader the proper
context. You remove you sub-conscious ability to read facial expressions
as part of the message you hear introducing the need for <grin>, :), ;),
etc.
>"The value of a network can be measured by the square of its number of
>users. Connected computers are better. Having the only telephone in the
>world would be of zero value, but this value increases for each new
>telephone it can call."
Again, this is a measure of the physical manifestation of the network. I
agree 1 phone has zero value. I can also picture a scenario where 100
interconnected phones have no value (they aren't used). You can say the
square of number of connected users is a measure of complexity. Value,
and value exchange is a function of how the network is used, and what it
is used for. Potential value increases, but more units are not
necessarily more valuable.
--"Scott R. Cypher" <SCypher@perform.vt.edu>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>