For this week’s activity we had to observe a piece of interactive technology in public and consider how it is used. I decided to pick the fountain in Washington Square Park, which interests me because it is unclear what its use is, or if it is even supposed to be interactive. I thought about the first chapter of Norman’s The Design of Everyday Things where he essentially complains about his university’s new phone system for a long time and he claims that a good design requires the intention of and directions for an object to be clear. So what is the intended use of the fountain? What are the directions? There are no signs saying you can or cannot go inside it or if you are allowed to go in the water. There are steps leading to it, but to reach them you have to climb a tall ledge and in general you are not allowed to swim in the fountains in New York City parks.
Given that the design and purpose is unclear it is interesting to observe how people decide to use it. Some people sit inside while others seem unsure if they can or want to or if they can swing their legs over the ledge to bother. Other people awkwardly walk up to take a photo or sit on the ledge facing away from the water. Today it was cold so nobody ventured into the water but on warmer days children splash in it. Sometimes people bathe in the fountain and sometimes people just wet their feet. Rarely do people go to the center jets, though some adventurous folks walk up to experience the force of the water.
The transaction can take as long or as short as the individual would like. Nobody is forced to use it to accomplish a well-defined goal and that is why it is so interesting: if it is not well-defined, well-designed, or even interactive according to Chris Crawford’s definition, how is it that so many people interact with it in such a variety of ways? So much so that it is a symbol of the park. Is intention and clear use really necessary to foster a good experience for the user? There is a level of wonder and exploration in an interactive technology that does not tell you what to do with it. Perhaps the fountain is just art and cannot be considered interactive technology. But then maybe technology should strive to be like art: exist for its own sake, whether for expression or joy or any other reason the maker decides. Because whatever the fountain is, it is at the very least a positive force for those who choose to interact with it.