Reflections on Tangible User Interfaces

THE INTRODUCTION

Cell Tango, based on a concept developed by George LeGrady, is an interactive exhibit that creates its “art” via user-submissions and tagging on Flickr. Currently on display at Wellesley College’s Davis Museum, Wellesley students have been invited to submit their own photographs and tag-based descriptions to the Cell Tango Flickr account, so that the exhibit’s content is constantly expanding.

THE TECHNOLOGY

Using a projection linked to a computer, the exhibit’s content is projected onto a large screen in a darkened room. This technology only summarizes the method in which the content is output; the content is input through other devices (students’ computers and cell phones). The exhibit’s software applies algorithms to collect the most recently submitted photographs for display, collects related photographs on Flickr based on user tags, and populates the display with clusters based on tag relationships.

THE DESIGN

The tags that found these relationships are always stated explicitly on the screen, in any case where tags are used to group the photographs. This is the case in two screens, while in the other two tags are used either as accessories in a large mosaic, or are left out entirely as photographs tile over each other in layers. As a fan of the humane use of typefaces, it was crushingly sad to see that all of the tags were in a bright yellow Verdana. Aside from that, the display of photographs and tags was in a very minimalist style, with little to no graphic “effects,” display occurring on a solid black background, and bare lines used to draw connections in clusters.

THE ANALYSIS

Despite interplay between physical technologies for content creation, Cell Tango is hardly a TUI. The participants in this exercise are far removed from the exhibit itself, and have to physically attend the exhibit in order to see their contributions. Submitting material and witnessing its impact are two distinct activities, and this separation lessens the output’s relevance. Because input and output are removed rather than interwoven, the piece couldn’t be farther from Ishii’s definition of what a tangible user interface should be. Furthermore, the tangible input technologies used are not particularly tailored to the task at hand – by having to adhere to a sequence of interactions that could just as easily send a text message or write an e-mail, the tangible technology itself isn’t very intentional.

From an artistic vantage point, the piece falls short as well. Aesthetically, the work’s simplicity is less in the vein of Mondrian and more in the vein of an untrained web designer using Geocities. The aesthetic scheme seems largely unintentional, and reduces the “art” of the piece to the custom algorithms used. The project has not only an unattractive user interface, however, but the piece doesn’t even allow the viewer to analyze the work on their own, making it artistically shallow. By boldly incorporating the tags and making them the focus of the piece, they prevent the viewer from drawing their own conclusions about how clusters of photographs are related.

Because there is no room for interpretation and it looks like a primeval Powerpoint presentation to boot, this “piece” reads more as a screensaver than as an innovative technology for collaboration or an artistic effort worthy of renown. While it is a successful experiment in collecting data from external participants and mobile technology, its failure to make that data very expressive renders it superficial as an exhibit.