In the last discussion, we found that the interactive body of the cube makes the entire narrative process lack reusability and stability. It is difficult for us to effectively intervene in the audience’s experience environment and guide them on the narrative track we have designed. This is undoubtedly not in line with our expectations.
So we re-disassembled our narrative process, and confirmed our current installation in terms of interaction means, animation details, control logic, process prompts, process reset, etc., with touch as the core and associated projection animation as feedback , there are out-of-order trigger events in the entire process, and multiple text or symbol prompts are required in the touch process to help the audience advance the process. And finally, it needs to be able to reset all previous interactions.
We found that the cube, as Chris pointed out, took on more of a controller role throughout the narrative flow than the information center we envisioned. The animation feedback of this process will undoubtedly weaken the role of the cube, and give the audience too much freedom, making it difficult for us to advance the narrative.
Based on this, we have bold ideas and replay the narrative without the cube. We try to integrate the “representational information” we want to present into the scene of touch interaction and animation.
We thought about various options, such as fixed cube touch, pull cube, hanging cube, floor cube and even virtual projection cube. But we found that these solutions either gave up the autonomy of the audience activities we wanted, or failed to solve the problem of uncontrollable audiences.
Then in my flashback, one of our original core interpretations of the project came to mind, that the cube was a concrete representation of our message. And if we can create an information space, put the audience in it, and give them space to interact with the information, we can throw the cube, shift the subject of the interaction, and keep everything under our control.
After a discussion, although there is still some uncertainty, because it requires us to design and manufacture the whole scene rather than a single installation, we still reach a consensus on the use of this scheme.