
Six Levels of Interaction with a System - based2
https://www.charlieharrington.com/the-six-levels-of-interaction-with-a-system
======
asciimike
I'd like to go one level further add what I believe is one of the most
important ways of interacting with a system, which is what I'll call "re-
purpose".

To carry on with the automotive analogy, I've likely achieved "level 5" of a
car: I've done several clutch replacements, rebuilt a suspension, and my
living room is full of car parts turned art pieces. But there are still things
I want to do that extend the functionality of the car, so it can do things the
original designers never intended, but that suit my needs better.

I think this is the critical step in innovation: taking something as it is and
being able to extend traditional "mastery" of the subject and create something
new and valuable. At that point, the cycle starts over: most people won't use
the thing, or some will use it for its first order purpose, but some dedicated
group of folks will dive deep and build on what you did to create something
new.

Educationally, I used to chat with my professors about how the theory they
used to write tests, and the best ones always fixed 100% at something we had
not yet learned, but could be derived from what we had been taught. You could
still get an A (90%) by regurgitating information by rot memorization, but
that extension was what showed you could move the field forward. Not only did
it make the tests more challenging, it also made the tests more fun.

~~~
whatrocks
OP here. I love the concept of "re-purpose" \- I was thinking that Level 5
meant that you could build/re-build the system however you choose. But there's
definitely a difference between re-building to a spec versus building
something new from same components or, as you say, designing something the
designers never intended. Would love to hear your ideas for what you want to
re-purpose on your car!

My economics professors in college followed the same school of thought for our
midterms and exams. So many students couldn't handle the idea that we were
going to see things on the test that "hadn't yet been taught" to them. The
tests were brutal, but felt like real learning was happening.

~~~
asciimike
> But there's definitely a difference between re-building to a spec versus
> building something new from same components or, as you say, designing
> something the designers never intended

I think this is where I like the distinctions below on extension vs invention.
Sometimes you're just taking what's there and re-arranging it; sometimes,
you're adding new things to replace the existing ones, sometimes you need to
clean slate using what you learned from the previous steps.

> Would love to hear your ideas for what you want to re-purpose on your car!

Here are a few examples:

\-
[https://f87.bimmerpost.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1675296](https://f87.bimmerpost.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1675296)
\-
[https://f87.bimmerpost.com/forums/showthread.php?p=26245043](https://f87.bimmerpost.com/forums/showthread.php?p=26245043)

It's a surprisingly good intellectual exercise during quarantine :D

I think that the other critical piece you mention is "having a goal". Most
people are only interested in getting from point A to point B, so they stay at
level 1 of cars (or computers, or investing). Once you set a goal for
yourself, the incentives shift and you're willing to dive deeper into the
levels mentioned here.

I often get asked for recommendations on "what programming language to learn"
from people interested in learning to code, at which point I ask them "what do
you want to do?" Having a goal for which programming is a solution is far more
important than learning a language, and the intrinsic motivation will push
people to discover the solutions vs the people just doing it because they've
been told they should.

------
metalliqaz
This is a great article and it's a nice model for understanding users.

I think I would add at least two levels beyond 5: (6) extend (7) design (8)
invent

Admittedly level 8 is going beyond the useful purpose of this model. Still,
it's how I think of things.

~~~
whatrocks
I love these extensions, and completely agree. If I write a follow-up, I'll
definitely add these levels. Especially because, right now, my article doesn't
talk at all about where these systems come from in the first place. They are
not invented by gods, but real people who have traveled this journey. By
adding these levels to the model, the notion of making a "Claude Shannon-like"
invention or discovery (something at its core that is simple yet powerful, and
obvious-in-retrospect) becomes more approachable for a mere learner.

~~~
metalliqaz
I always like this quote:

What I can't create I don't understand -Richard Feynman

------
GuiA
It's interesting to compare and contrast e.g. a F1 racer driver vs a pit stop
mechanic in this model (or an airplane pilot/mechanic/aeronautic engineer).

