>>Discussion Questions for "Transforming Mirrors" by David Rokeby
1. How does Rokeby define interactivity? Which examples of pre-technological interactive artworks does he give?
2. Do you agree that a book or text is a machine for producing meaning by readers similar to the way software code is a machine that is read by the computer?
3. What are examples of the interactive art categories he uses of "navegable structures", "a creative medium in its own right", a "transforming mirror" and "automotan"?
4. Do you agree that chance, surprise, and unpredictablity are important aspects of interactive art? What other qualities does Rokeby emphasize?
5. What is more important in an interactive artwork according to Rokeby, the results of the interaction or the feedback loop between user and software?
6. Do you agree with Rokeby that computer games are lacking in complexity and richness, placing too much emphasis on ego-gratifying control and power?
7. How would various genres of computer games work into Rokeby categories he uses(his taxonomy) for interactive art? How do Japanese games differ from Western games in terms of interactivity?
8. What is an example of a communication system as a navigable structure?
9. Why is Rokeby opposed to "transparency" in interfaces?
10. One thing Rokeby barely touches on is represention of perspective (1st Person, 3rd Person, God, non- visual etc) How does perspective relate to control and power of interactive interfaces?