Talk:Enactive interfaces

More content2
I think there should be some references to Varela and Maturana and probably a link to autopoiesis and so on. if i find the time i'd be happy to add some stuff myself.

Proposed deletion
This article goes beyond being just a dictionary entry since it also describes research on enaction. I think it's better to improve articles with potentially useful content than it is to just delete them; see the Wikipedia material on alternatives to deletion. --A. B. 04:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

More content
I've added more content related to the Enactive Knowledge, Interfaces and current research, hoping that the current status is satisfactory I've removed the deletion request.

In the meanwhile I've contacted some of the Philosophical partners of the ENACTIVE NoE for improving the theorical description of the Enactive Knowledge. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sankazim (talk • contribs) 18:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC).


 * Great -- thanks for contributing.--A. B. 20:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations by your contribution. Nevertheless in the text there is a confusion. With relation to the concept of enaction, Varela has developed it (although not according to the model of Bruner), but Maturana is not in agreement with this concept, he speaks of "structural perturbation". In relation to this point both thinkers followed ways different. Greetings for everybody. RE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.22.69.18 (talk) 05:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Move to Enactive interfaces
Most of this material is concerned with Enactive interfaces and it has been moved to that page. The rest concerns Enactivism and has been moved there. Brews ohare (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC) As a result of these moves, this page is no longer needed and has been nominated for deletion. Brews ohare (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Where does the concept come from?
I'm a researcher in the field of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) and it is the first time I see the term "enactive interface", although I know about Varela's concept of enaction. A quick search on ACM's Digital Library (where are hosted the papers from the most influent HCI conferences and journals) only give 2 results. So, this is clearly not a term comming from HCI, although the page talks about human-machine interfaces and uses a lot of terms that are common in HCI, such as feedback and affordances. More importantly, the description of the concept of "enactive interface" seem very naive and would probably not be endorsed by the HCI field. So I suggest that the page is modified to make this clear. For example by starting the text with "In [discipline that is not HCI], enactive interfaces are...", and that at some point in the text it is made clear that the concept is not used in HCI, where we use alternative concepts to convey similar ideas, such as Tangible and Embodied Interfaces (TEI) or Reality-Based Interfaces (RBI). Also, it is not clear if the term is really adopted by a community or if the term is promoted by some isolated individuals, so there should be in the page a section about "usage of the term" or "adoption of the concept". -- Clément Pillias (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Is it possible that the article refers to a term by a different name? If so, what would that be? If there is a more widely used term to refer to the content of this article, then it should be renamed. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)