Traditionally:

1. Input → 2. Output
or
1. Input → 2. Minor Edit → 3. Output

(ex. Direct system parameters manipulation (Co2, ppm) → Directly affected as output (Often as data visualisation))

What I propose (Especially for multi-user situations)

1. Input → 2. Input Dimensional Transformation → 3. System → 4. Output Dimensional Transformation → 5. Output

More precisely:

1. Input parameter adjustment interaction Input Modalities → 2. Input Dimensional Transformation (From UI Input parameters → System input parameters) → 3. Systematic Changes (System Input → System Output) → 4. Output Dimensional Transformation (System Output Parameters → User-facing Output parameters) → 5. Different A/V Output

For example:
1. Everyday Interface Input Modalities
1 → 2. Current parameters: Consumption, policy, traffic, real-world metrics
2. Input Dimensional Transformation (Real-world tangible action/data to system metrics)
2 → 3. Current parameters: Co2, PPM, (Ecological) System Input parameters 
3. Systematic Algorithm 
3 → 4. Current parameters: Temperature, Humidity, System Output parameters ‘Conseuqences’
4. Output Dimensional Transformation (System output to Real-world output/events)
4 → 5. Current parameters (Information): Wildfire/Natural Disaster, Lack of Water/Food Resources, etc.
5. Everyday Interface/Simulation/etc. Output

1 → 2 → 3 → 4 → 5

Note: Dimensional Transformation is not 1:1 / 1:N / N:1 Relationship (i.e., not like single consumption/event directly transforming a single/multiple climate metric)

Rather, it’s a M:N Relationship → If there exist 7 input stations and 5 main climate metrics, for example, it’s a 7:5 relationship. Vice versa for the output dimensional transformation: Depicting a hyperobject can contaminate multiple outputs (코끼리와 장님).

This structure effectively captures the complexity and intertwining/relational structure of complex society/system/ecological system whilst well-managing/defining the algorithmic structure behind the scene.

WHY DIMENSIONAL TRANSFORMATION?

Direct configuration/parameterisation of the system, enabling suer to explicitly/directly control the system is not sexy at all --- Direct Manipulation, clear cause & effect가 되면 So What?
What is the value of interaction? More than just a simple interactive interface? Has clear limitations

Avoid direct manipulation. We need indeed DIMENSIONAL TRANSFORMATION btw interactions

차라리 Piano Interface 처럼 (피아노를 치는데 양쪽 스크린에서 시간이 조절된다?), 아니면 Toggler Interface/Toggler Interface + Voice INterface처럼 Multi-Modality Conducting? 한 Interactive Modality에서 다른 Systematic Parameter로 DIMENSIONAL TRANSFORMATION이 일어날때 진짜 재미가 느껴짐
 
Why Dimensional Transformation? What is the value of it?
Not obvious: Fun when the mental model is newly established. V-Effekt possible
Allows space for context to involve within the process of dimensional transformation
Semantic interaction to involve, when designed very well
Why not obvious interaction? Why such dimensional transformation? Why involve/engage the specific interactive modality A to induce a systemic change? When reasoned well - why specifically modality A is used, it adds an implicit and strong conceptual layer to the overall interaction
Good example: Bike - city touring interaction
Why certain dimensional transformation? Why certain modality?
Why piano?
Why toggler?
Why voice interaction?
All opportunities to strongly bind interaction to the narrative/context
이들 사용한 Justification이 누구나 알아들을 수 있고 직관적으로 감각할 수 있는 Level까지 Narrow Down/Define 되어야

This 1 -> 2 -> 3 -> 4 -> 5 also resonates with the idea: Interface-as-Instrument

1 -> 2 -> 3 -> 4 -> 5: Similar yet different

1 -> 2 -> 3 -> 4 four structure (System is in btw 2 and 3)
1: Instrumental input
1-> 2: Input Dimensional Transformation
2: System Input
2 -> 3: Systematic Algorithm
3: System Output
3 -> 4: Output Dimensional Transformation
4: Interface Output

For example: Play Garden Idea

1: Phenomenological Interaction? Interactions that kids can do… Very natural modality, screaming, punching, scrolling, tapping, swiping, etc. (Let’s say there are 7 different modalities)
1 → 2: 7-dimension to 9-dimension mapping (7-to-9)
2: Maps to the Anthropocene data (Nine planetary boundaries)
2 → 3: Ecological system
3: Ecological outputs 
3 → 4: Visualising Dimensional Transformation
4: Depicted output, like how garden is changed

What is this? Is this similar to simulation? Maybe, perhaps the structure is similar to simulation – but it’s different in a way…