Apart from talking about the artist's intent and application, I did a critique of their work based on the following criteria:

1) Knowledge - Knowledge gained from interacting with exhibit or prior knowledge needed in order to understand it

2) Choice and Control - The level of choice and control the viewers or participants have

3) Conversation - Linking back to the previous entry about Interactivity being a conversation a conversation between two parties; between audience and artwork. They have to participate in this conversation sequence which requires them to listen, think and then speak. Is it better at one aspect such as "speaking" and not good in all?

4) Emotion - Did it manage to evoke a variety of emotions from the audience? If so, what kind of feelings and how?

• 
  Conclusion (for essay)
  
  Artist bias would drive them to a certain direction in regards to content and design. Biasness would also affect my personal view and interpretation of their work regarding interactivity and interaction design. Overall, all three exhibits chosen; Gunkulcha (2005), We have you surrounded (2005) and Interstice (2005) had fulfilled its purpose and is deemed as successful designs based on the artist's initial intent. But the limitations of the design would seem more apparent when compared to certain fundamentals of interactivity and other theories of the human cognition. And it is debatable whether such art forms should be designed for the artist or for the user. It isn't always about the artist; but the artists might lose "herself" from her piece that is designed for others. There is no clear 50% division between the two. Therefore, no design is perfect; nothing in this world is completely and utterly flawless.

To read finished essay, go to http://student.ci.qut.edu.au/~n4810546/kib210/kib210ass1.doc