Structuralism

I know that today we were trying to find the code how to interpret those movies. We were talking about one detail give us clues about what would happen later, and the camera positions tell us blablabla. However, David mentioned that the director forced us to see the focuses and the next screen, we have no choice as an audience. Then I found I was trying to guess the directors intentions about why they put some certain background things into the stage, and how the directors put those clothes onto the actors’ body in order to express the roles’ personality.  My question is that do I come back to phenomenology from structuralism when I tried to guess and explain the directors’ intentions? Or I am using the structuralism method as far as I still decompose the movie into cloth, camera position and other aspects.

Focus-Screen and Stage

Today in class we agreed that there are less options in terms of directing/controlling focus on the stage than in the cinema.  I want to bring up the way lighting is used on stage.  Though it does convey emotional reaction with color and mood, etc., I primarily want to focus on how it’s used to direct our focus.

Though I do agree that there is a richer repertoire for controlling focus on the screen (deep/shallow, zooming), the stage does do this with:

• the curtain
• proscenium-the imaginary line between “reality” where the audience is and imaginary/fantasy where the performance is.  for practical purposes, it is the (imaginary)line on which the curtain open and closes
• lighting (especially spot lights)
• and of course blocking (down vs upstage)-the position/placement of actors

Do you think this is similar and that film can take it further and offers more simply because of the medium or am I off base here?

Mise En Scene and Design

The Lacey article “Film Language” presents the film analysis term mise en scene as “what can be seen in the picture” and consisting of production design (sets, props, and costumes), colour, lighting, actors’ performance, diegetic sound, and framing. I want address a few of these with examples.

The first piece of mise en scene I want to look at is “lighting.” The film “Traffic” provides a good example of how a change in lighting can change the feel and overall meaning behind a particular scene. The movie jumps back and forth between stories taking place in Mexico and the United States. All of the shots in Mexico are lighted in a way that makes them appear washed-out and dusty with colors like yellow, brown, and gray. This provides the viewer with an entirely different experience than the shots that take place in the United States.

The other piece of mise en scene I want to present is “diegetic sound.” A good example of this is in the film “The Way of the Gun” (coincidentally, another film crossing the border between the United States and Mexico). In this film, there are a lot of gunshots. The director purposely replicated the actual, unmanipulated sound of a shot every time a gun is fired. In most films, this sound is modified to be “easier” on the viewer’s ears and more “comfortable” to hear. In reality, the sound of a gunshot can be extremely loud and generally uncomfortable to hear (as far as I can imagine anyway… not much personal experience). Anyhow, the director wanted the viewer to be made uncomfortable by these repeated sounds, because many of the violent scenes of the film are indeed uncomfortable for many to watch.

Both of these examples I’ve provided link to an idea in design that I like to think about… “transparency.” In these films, the viewer may be affected without even knowing why. With regards to interaction design, it is interesting to think about designing in a way that the user feels things and experiences things without wanting or needing to know why. It just happens. The ultimate goal in many cases, right?

The Wikipedia definition of mise en scene labels it “film criticism’s grand undefined term.” This is not because it lacks definition, but because there are so many definitions and interpretations. I feel the same about some of the terms I come across in HCI.

This course began with asking the question “can HCI develop a language like film theory has to describe itself?” Personally, I still don’t know the answer to that question. I don’t even know where to begin. It’s a nice thought, but I’m not there yet.

History of Film and HCI

A quick note that the mappings between HCI and film in this post are not intended to be accurate, but are meant to ask some hopefully thought provoking questions.

The early days of film saw a split into the realist and formalist camps. You can loosely associate realism with the early focus of HCI on functionality and efficiency. Realism in film seems to loosely correlate to the “modern” HCI interest in experience.

Perhaps some bad graphical representations will help.

——- Film ——

Realism < —- > Formalism

—– HCI  —–

Functionality

Efficiency

Usability

Experience

What I’m trying to represent is film split and focused on both realism (functionality, efficiency) simultaneously with formalism (experience) while HCI has taken a much more orderly, singular focus beginning with functionality and efficiency (realism) and moving to experience (formalism).

Why is that? Why did film split and HCI remain whole? What effect has that had on the development of film media vs. interactive media?

“Library” vs. “Language” of Interactions

One thing you will find in abundance are libraries of interactions, often called widgets. Richie Hazlewood posted this link to the HCI distribution list earlier today, but it’s not the only one. The “components” that ship with Flash are another set, and information architect folks (e.g., Garrett) likewise have a standardized collection of interaction diagrams.

To me, these feel more like libraries than languages, and I’ve been thinking about what I mean by that distinction. Are the elements of the language of film more or less equivalent to search boxes, accordians, table filters, tabs, shopping carts, and store locators? My gut tells me that there is a difference, in that one is oriented toward human expression, and another is oriented toward UI engineering, that is, how we structure code and interfaces for optimal performance. But is this distinction legitimate (i.e., that there really is a difference out there), or is it habit (i.e., that we’re just used to thinking about things that way)?

I actually would like to hear what you all think about this; it may or may not come up in class this semester. So I encourage comments, opinionating, and even pontificating here, where appropriate.

Nurses in the Health Care Industry

Clarion Health Partners in Indianapolis uses software for the management of patient records. Nurses and physicians interact with software extensively to get their jobs done. The integration of technology for hospitals and patient care is continuing to be used in more integral ways with the hope that it will assist in alleviating the high costs and demands in the health care industry today.

The average age of nurses in the United States is about their mid-40s, and having worked in the health care industry, I noticed that one of the greatest challenges has been in training computer illiterate nurses to use technology. A specific example is the use of electronic patient charts by nurses. Electronic charts have numerous institutional benefits over paper: quick access, integrity of information, automatic conflict checking, not getting lost, the ability to transfer information across institutions easily witihout the need for it to travel, integrity of information, the ability for statistical analysis and the ability to access the chart in multiple locations at the same time. Despite these and other benefits, nurses are not always enthusiastic about the use of such systems because it does not always enhance their work experience.

As technology progresses and the demand for health care increases, we are also increasing in our dependence on technology. We have surpassed both enthusiast and professional stages for many technologies for hospitals, but we have yet to arrive at a “consumer” stage for most applications of technology in the health care industry. The use of “implicit” meaning is lacking and nurses often require special training to use technology effectively. Emotional satisfaction, communication, intuitive interaction and sociability in healthcare IT are all areas that interaction design has not effectively addressed for managing patient charts, as is evident in the challenges nurses face today. Phenomenologically, we need to consider the horizons of nurses and have an understanding of their lifeworlds so that the aforementioned areas can be adequately addressed. With technology, the nursing “role” has been changed. As actors, nurses presently need to acquire rules of participation together with props, and many times, as designers, we lack the understanding of the actor’s definitions of the situation.

In a famous quote by Isabel Maitland Stewart, she explains “The real essence of nursing, as of any fine art, lies not in the mechanical details of execution, nor yet in the dexterity of the performer, but in the creative imagination, the sensitive spirit, and the intelligent understanding lying back of these techniques and skills”. This quote is supportive of approaching design for nurses beginning at the micro level. A micro level approach would include the assumption that “people are creative, intelligent and knowledgeable” and it would include using “interpretative methodologies which try to capture the actor’s definitions of the situation”.  This is also very realistic because now more elaborate “movement” than a new page loading or progress bars can be implemented easily with web 2.0 technologies, making their technological experiences more lively.

Trusting technology is also a common issue at hospitals, which is suggestive that a level of realism should be expressed through digital medium. This obviously could not replace a formative approach, which could be creatively used to enhance the patient-nurse relationship. Those issues that nurses do not care about could be designed to be as ready-to-hand as possible. One goal of nurses is often to reach a level of accomplishment and satisfaction through care for a patient, so the things that nurses care about, such as aspects of the patient-nurse relationship, should probably remain as present-to-hand as possible and could be enhanced instead of abstracted through the use of electronic patient charts.

Realism in HCI

At the beginning of the semester, Gillan Smith’s article set up the challenge to develop an “independent language of interaction” that fully exploits the medium of computers — similar to how the early techniques of cinema eventually stabilized into a coherent visual language. While its contentious that such a singular language can be created for HCI, I think most agree that because cinema is a more mature medium, studying its critical vocabulary can be insightful.

With this in mind, I think Christian Metz’ article gives an insightful phenomenological account for why the medium of film is so powerful. Central to his explanation is the notion of realism. Basically he argues that by captuing motion, film achieves a level of realism that makes its images present to us. Whereas the static images of photography convey a sense of reality in the past, the moving images of film convey a reality that is ‘here and now’. The result is that the viewer is able to ‘participate’ in the represented reality — by identifying with characters, reacting viscerally and emotionally to the action, etc.

However this degree of realism hinges upon the distinct separation between the represented space and the audience’s physical space. This boundary of the screen allows the viewer to forget the real world and enter in to the diagesis. He contrasts this with a stage performance in which this boundary does not exist. The audience shares physical space with the represented reality and thus, says Metz, the vehicle of representation is too real. The result is that the viewer is all too conscious of the artificiality of the performance and ends up identifying more with the actors themselves than with their characters.

I think Metz’ analysis holds a lot of insight for HCI. Not only has he revealed realism as a powerful aspect of the film experience, he has also illustrated how it is affected by particular qualities of the medium, namely motion and separation of space. I don’t mean that we should simply try to mimic the realism of film–in fact I can see one problem with attempting to do that–but rather we can think about the degree of realism which is most appropriate in particular design contexts, and give consideration to how motion and separation of space affect the experience. As a starting point for this kind of analysis, I’ve placed some different interactive experiences where I think they might fit into Metz’ model:

Le Manifesto De Movement Part Deux

“Movement brings us volume and volume suggests life.”

Human response to change, or our embodied reaction within Δ time, is what makes movement so powerful and film such a vivid experience.

The dimension of time necessitates that we make use of our memory in a different way.  When we look at an image, we reflect upon the image and often relate it to concepts formulated in our long-term memory.  In film, more parts of the brain may interact.

Memory is traditionally categorized into three types: sensory memory, short-term memory and long-term memory.  Sensory memory will often last for a second or two.

Film further manipulates the domain of short-term memory, which may typically last about half a minute.  There are a number of stages for short-term memory. Below is one nueroscientist’s categorical stages of short-term memory dependent on time.

Finally, as we interpret information in our short-term memory, we may categorize information in long-term memory in both an individually proactive and socially reflective way.

The dimension of time is irreversable and we are conditioned to actively make use of all forms of memory within time constraints to retain information. When watching film, the perceiver must remember from one scene to the other and all of these parts of the brain begin reacting. Our brains are stimulated to remember because we learn that time cannot be reversed, and we chronologically give meaning to the scenes.

Mise-en-scène of HCI Designers

In the last class discussion, I broached about mise-en-scène for film theory. I had taken a film theory and history class when I was a freshman. Although I forgot almost about that lecture now, when I met the question 4, I came across a term, mise-en-scène. I think HCI Designers should have their mise-en-scène for their works. I’d like to apply to a view of HCI designer’s mise-en-scène from a view of movie director’s mise-en-scène.

Mise-en-scène is a French term and originates in the theater. It means, literally, “put in the scene.” For film, it has a broader meaning, and refers to almost everything that goes into the composition of the shot, including the composition itself: framing, movement of the camera and characters, lighting, set design and general visual environment, even sound as it helps elaborate the composition.

Movie directors regard mise-en-scène as a representation means that they are able to command. I think mise-en-scène is like their unique style and a sort of a seal of creators. Therefore, I’d like to make a relation between mise-en-scène in film for space construction by film director and mise-en-scène for lifeworld that HCI designer have to design.

The first thing that I want to talk as a constituent of mise-en-scène for space construction is FRAME. FRAME in film is a frame in a square to make up mise-en-scène. In other words, it is a kind of a border to define an area of a screen. Then, what is the meaning of the FRAME to HCI designer?? They have to know how can define the square area to apply for users context in the lifeworld and have to define the area where people can act without constraints.

The second is ICON. It is one of the means to categorize and analyze with visual motive and style. That is an ICON, which is made up the image by costume, set, color, and texture. Therefore, I think HCI designer should give users the motivation and have the users pay attention to using design works through various, for example, signs, symbols, characters, the meanings of colors, and the cultural context. I believe that designers can extract interaction between users and the designed artifacts from those.

The third one is ANGLE. When a director takes objects by a camera, he or she who constructs the screen space keeps up the angle to express his or her perspective and criticism. It is no wonder that it is one of the basic of HCI designer. When they design something for users, a goal for it should be concurred by users and should focus on users’ level just like eyelevel of camera.

The last one is COMPOSITION. When a director wants stable and harmonious images, he or she frequently use the highly symmetrical composition. In my point of view, HCI designers have to solve keeping balance between lifeworld and their design works for computer interaction by users’ purpose to provide stable and congruous experience.

In Wikipedia, it says mise-en-scène is “grand undefined term”, but that is not because of a lack of definitions. Rather, it’s because the term has so many different meanings that there is little consensus about its definition. From this definition of mise-en-scène, I feel a similarity that the design process has so many different ways to approach for a purpose and a goal but it is not easy to reach consensus by all the users.

the death of the viewer

Stephen Prince argues that “To date, theory has tended to minimize the importance of perceptual correspondences, but the advent of digital imaging demonstrates how important they are and have been all along.” Things like the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park or the impossibly realistic landscape in True Lies each highlight problems with traditional film theory, exposing the realism/expressionism distinction is oversimplified or inaccurate.

Prince suggests that before we can subject digital film to a meta-critique, we need to develop a precise understanding of how film creates a “perceptually valid” experience for the viewer. However, the perceptual realism approach the Prince suggests still distinguishes between a theorist (film theorist), a creator (cinematographer, special effects artist), and the consumer (film viewer). Such a model also contains problems which digital media highlights, problems that have been been around all along.

A DVD allows the viewer to easily select scenes and view in different speeds. Most DVDs also include special features sections, which may contain deleted scenes and commentary by actors, directors, and film theorists. The viewer is able to experience, perhaps only vicariously, the experience of a film theorist or cinematographer. Scene selection and playback speeds aid the viewer in analyzing the film from as film theorist, rather than as simply a viewer.

Digital film also facilitates (co)creation in more active ways, as well. Video games, virtual worlds, and amateur video are all examples of content where an individual may easily and quickly shift roles between viewer (someone experiencing the artificial as real), creator (someone creating the artificial to be experience as real), and theorist (someone trying to describe and explain it all).

Many of the examples in Jeff’s presentation show how self-reference is pervasive in amateur multimedia art. References to things outside referents like the green-screen in the Colbert Video can disrupt the viewing experiencing. Hyperlinks are an important example of this type of disruption in the viewing experience.

With digital artifacts, it no longer makes sense to analyze the experience with the assumption that the user is purely a consumer; that they are experiencing (or approximately experiencing) a reality created for them by someone else, which in turn can all be understood from a theorist’s perspective. Not only do we switch roles more easily and frequently with digital artifacts, but our experience of the artifact in one mode affects are experiences in others. For example, my undertanding of the design process and tools for creating special effects (that I learned from watching the special features), allows me to rewatch the movie as a viewer, this time experiencing the effects from the viewpoint of the creator not the actors in the story.

Of course, under this model, everything seems to b a mess. A theorist has to seriously consider that there no clear boundaries between consumer, creator, and theorist. Furthermore, theory itself now seems more obligated to take into account it’s own theory, leading to an infinite regression. Prince’s agenda of understanding the viewing experience before we critique it may be impossible in the simplified way that he proposes.

So how is the theorist supposed to make sense of the whole thing? I think I can see how structuralism, with it’s emphasis on the artifact and meaning rather than the intentions of individuals, seems like it may be of help here. Structuralism seems like it can potentially avoid some of these complicated issues that arise when theorists have to consider recursive and shifting roles. Then again, at times I suspect that I still “don’t know dick” about structuralism.