Frankly, I was thinking why Dr. Howard let us read Laurel's article which was published in 1993. It seemed be kind of a very initial version that treats "human-computer interaction (HCI)." I mean we could read more recent articles because this area has increasingly changed and updated. While reading it, however, I was impressed by the author's insight about interface design. Specially, it is very predictable that "a scene design is not a whole play - for that we also need representations of character and action (10)." It reminds me "presence," that is a theoretical concept describing the effect that people expereince when they interact with a computer-mediated or computer-generated environment (Sheridan, 1994, from wiki).
In this chapter, the author entirely talks about how theatrical elements and theories apply to designing interactions between human and computer. All actions related to computer-interactions is represented by people. The human is an indispensable ingredient of the representation (2). In real, it is human who is the subject doing something like writing, painting, and editing in interaction with computer. But, I do not think this is sort of interactive behaviors. If there is absolutely a mutual interaction between human and computer, and that is a part where HCI (or interactive design) is studied, we need to know certain models of iteraction (or communication), one of which is "the notion of common ground described by Herbert H. Clark and Susan E. Brennan (1990) (3)." Simply put, the model means that purposive interactivities are achieved based upon common ground and accumulation. The notion of common ground not only provides a superior representation of the conversational process but also supports the idea that an interface is not simply the means whereby a person and a computer represent themselves to one another (4).
Probably, interaction based on common ground!
This concept is from human-to-human coversation, so called, speech communication. I came up with "feedback,"one of concepts in communication theories when I read common ground. In communication, feedback has been a vital idea breaking limitation of linear communication. In this point of view, I thought there must be also "feedback" in interaction between human and computer because it is reciprocal. Then, what would be "feedback" there? Probably, the feedback is like echo in HCI. Think about how we use our computer. Interactions with computer are physically mediated by the monitor screen, but, as mentioned above, an individual oneself perform all things as a subject; to turn on and off a computer, run software, and organzie files. This looks like not mutual but one-way actions. If we interact with computer and receive somthing like a message from it, then the message-like comes from our actions, not computer itself. When it comes to "represntation," who feels the things represented? It is, after all, by the users who represent them. Laurel states that "you either feel yourself to be participating in the ongoing action of the prepresentation or you don't (20-21)," suggesting additional rudimentary measure of interactivity. Users themselves are engaged in their behaviors on computer That is why I mentioned that feedback is like echo here. Interface itself does not explain anything. When a user is mediated via the interface, it does have any meaning.
The analogy adapting theatrical view to human-computer activity looks so sharp. However, we should not forget that we deal with digital content, not analogue. Undoubtedly, there is a huge distinction. I understand what the author tried to say trhough theatrical perspective as an interface metaphor but we have to consider differences between digital and analogue.
