Innovative Interactivity?

In Lev Manovich's book, the Language of New Media, he describes what he believes is the Myth of Interactivity. His main argument centers around the idea that with interactivity, we are simply going along with other people's thought processes, rather than creating our own associations.

Mental processes of reflection, problem solving, recall and association are externalized, equated with following a link, moving to a new page, choosing a new image, or a new scene. In short, we are asked to follow pre-programmed, objectively existing associations. The interactive media asks us to identify with somebody's else mental structure. 

Whether you agree with his perspective or not, in this blog post, I attempt to evaluate six different interactive websites according to his views. 

For my first website, I immediately went to the Subservient Chicken, fast-food giant Burger King's new advertising campaign. I had never heard of the Subservient Chicken before so when I arrived at the website and was greeted by a man standing in his living room in a chicken suit, I was instantly amused. I initially typed in rudimentary commands such as "dance" and "jump," which the chicken performed with some difficulty I might add, and then submitted more obscure ones. I was amazed that the chicken could perform a broad range of activities, until I began thinking about the technological aspects behind this website. Was this actually a live stream of man in a chicken suit performing tasks 24/7 for the public? Could the chicken see me laughing through my webcam the same way I could see him? I briefly considered these options before looking it up on Wikipedia.

On the page, a man in a chicken costume performs a wide range of actions based on a user's input, showing pre-recorded footage and appearing like an interactive webcam. There are more than three hundred commands that the Subservient Chicken will respond to, including: Michael Jackson dance moves, do the YMCA, and make a sandwich. 

The Subservient Chicken. Image courtesy of Burger King.

 While I was slightly surprised to find out these were pre-recorded moves, I was still highly amused by the site. I typed in some of the strange commands from Wikipedia like "Michael Jackson thriller" just to see if the chicken could really do it. And he can. While all the footage is pre-recorded, the Subservient Chicken is still an extremely interactive website because users can enter literally anything they want to see the chicken do and it will interpret the command, classifying it as one of their existing moves, and then perform it for the viewer. This concept contradicts Manovich's argument because we are not following a pre-programmed association or someone else's mental structure, but rather coming up with our own words and phrases to dictate the chicken's actions, thus revealing us inner thoughts.

The next site I chose to look at was Moodstream. As I entered the site, I immediately recognized that it provided music according to your mood, but wasn't sure of what it did much farther than that. I think the blog Lifehacker does a really great job describing what Moodstream really is.

Moodstream is an interesting mashup of several forms of media, designed to bring you music, images, and video in sync with the mood you're in—or the mood you want to be in!—through a simple interface. Moodstream streams music accompanied by images and video clips to create a sort of audio-visual ambient mix.

Users can select moods from a pre-set wheel including excite, refresh, intensify, simplify, stabilize, and inspire. Or they can determine their own mood on five different scales, setting the dial anywhere between the extremes of each emotion.

Moodstream. Image courtesy of Lifehacker. 

 

 

 

In combining a user's emotions into a music database, Moodstream creates an experience different from most other audio related sites. Its emotional appeals allow users to express their inner thoughts and feelings and creates an extremely personalized experience. There are an infinite number of mood combinations, which allows the user to feel unique. The overall concept of this site contradicts on of Manovich's point in The Myth of Interactivity that in new media, we are simply "following pre-programmed, objectively existing associations." On the contrary, Moodstream allows users to create their own experience and develop their own associations and are not following someone else's mental process.



Next is Samsung's AnyFilms, an interactive website allowing users to create their own films. This is the only information users are given, which creates an element of uncertainty.

10 characters. 1 event. A mysterious suitcase. A fascination with underwear. 10 possible endings. 11,000 ways for the story to play out. Samsung bring you the future of entertainment. Configure and re-configure the story to pick up different clues as you try to figure out exactly what happened. 

Users can choose four of six icons and place them anywhere on the grid to determine the content of the movie. The icons are violence, phone, liquor, underwear, flowers, or bathroom. Users are enticed to continue to make short films of about five minutes, each different combination revealing more about the plot and the outcome of the story. This site definitely has a more cognitive appeal than something like Moodstream, but still contradicts Manovich's idea that interactivity is going along with someone another person's thought process, rather than developing your own associations. Users of AnyFilms create their own movie shorts through their own thought processes, discover content and reach outcomes based on their own placement of icons, not someone else's.

Another example of interactivity is featured on the New York Times Website, titled Year in Ideas 2008. It's the eighth issue for the New York Times online magazine and is a compilation of "an alphabetical digest of ideas, from A to Z (almost), that helped make the previous 12 months, for better or worse, what they were." Users hover their mouse over each letter and a scroll of ideas pop up, which can be anywhere from one to seven depending on the letter. These ideas range from quirky innovations like "Air Bags for the Elderly" to more serious like "Imaginary Kidnappings" in Mexico.

Year in Ideas 2008. Image courtesy of the New York Times.

While scrolling through and choosing ideas based on the letter is an interactive feature on the New York Times, the concept as a whole does not require much effort on the user's part. Because of this, I think the Year in Ideas 2008 reiterates Manovich's Myth of Interactivity. Users are following a pre-existing format rather than creating their own and can read about the ideas presented but cannot add their own thoughts or comments. They are simply clicking on provided hyperlinks and essentially following the structure set by the New York Times, rather than one they create on their own.

One of the last examples is Dove's advertising campaign, Waking Up Hannah. The beginning screen says:

Got a minute? Got 5? Even better. Hannah has a busy day ahead of her as she tries to make it to her blind date. But you get to control how she handles it. We'll take care of the first scene, and then, it's over to you.

Users then continue to the opening scene, a combination of still shots and video from a night of partying until we see one woman waking up in the morning, hungover, but desperately needing to start her day. From there, we choose one of three Dove products, each having a different effect and starting her on a different morning path. Throughout the rest of the film, users can change to a fresh perspective by clicking on the shadow version of Hannah, which transitions them to a new scene. This site reminded of Samsung's AnyFilms because users can choose the plot, style, content, and outcome of the film short. But in Waking up Hannah, users play an interactive role throughout the entire movie, whereas on AnyFilms, the user's role is strictly at the beginning and they remain spectators during the video. Again, this site contradicts Manovich's views on interactivity because users are creating their own associations, rather than following another person's thought process.

On a more personal note, I found this site to be somewhat boring and lost interest fairly quickly. Not only did the woman's acting bother me, but it lacked the same depth that AnyFilms offered. I had no interest in starting over from a new perspective to see where Hannah's adventure took me like I did with the mystery film from Samsung. How this was ranked as one of the top interactive sites baffles me.

The final example is The Barbarian Group, an interactive marketing website. The group has designed and executed all the previous interactive sites, with the exception of the New York Times Year in Ideas. Possibly their most famous, at least most referred to, are the Subservient Chicken and AnyFilms. The company is devoted to "delivering the best possible experience for the consumer" by using "all skills in service to provide the best interactive marketing possible." The site allows users to look through their portfolio of all the companies they've done projects for with links to these sites and a blog that they can comment on. While the site itself isn't as interactive as the projects they've worked on, users can still browse at their own pace and find their own way through the site. 

This has been my analysis of six different interactive website examples in relation to Manovich's Myth of Interactivity. Now it's your turn. What's your take on the interactivity of these websites? Do they reinforce or contradict Manovich's ideas?