Animator vs Animation

Jenny Brown sent around a link to this website.  I believe it does a nice job illustrating many of the aesthetic concepts we struggled with yesterday (especially hypermediation!).

http://fc01.deviantart.com/fs13/f/2007/077/2/e/Animator_vs__Animation_by_alanbecker.swf

p.s. if it is illegal to post this link for some reason, I take full responsibility for it and ask you to forget that I mentioned Jenny Brown sent it because that was a lie (even though it’s true).

Post-structuralism and Destiny

We’re talking about that every human being is a survival machine of genes, memes and maybe other units. From this perspective, is there a destiny for every person?

Like Shakespear, his genes, memes and the environment he was born into might be the crucial elements to his success. Are there other elements which lead to his achievement? Are all his personal efforts afterwards pre-destined by the gene, meme and the birth environment? The education and impact he received from the world around him can also be important, but are they also pre-destined before his birth?

There might also be some dynamic things going on which can be taken as coincidences. So are people’s lives just combinations of pre-destined elements and conincidences?

Tagging as Identity Construction

For my paper, I’ve been looking at tagging on sites like Del.icio.us and Flickr.  Lots of interesting design opportunities here (e.g. vocabulary problems, identifying communities of practice, adapting to site navigation). One thing I found particularly interesting was how much you can learn about someone from their tag cloud (and how eager some people are to share their tag clouds). Yes, tags clouds are useful interfaces…but an individual’s tag cloud also says something about them; a community’s tag cloud says something about that community.  In this sense, they are similar to facebook and myspace: they are ever-changing interfaces of the self.

This echoes some ideas from Manovich: “…creating a work in new media can be understood as construction of an interface to a database. […] As a cultural form, the database represents the world as a list of items, and it refuses to order this list. In contrast, a narrative creates a cause-and-effect trajectory of seemingly unordered items.”  This cultural logic of the database manifested in new media has led to a database complex, “an irrational desire to preserve and store everything.” [e.g. lifelogging, lifecaching]

The other key form of new media that Manovich talks about is navigable space.  “The subject of the information society finds peace in the knowledge she can slide over endless fields of data, locating nay morsel of information with the click of a button, zooming through file systems and networks.”

How do we make sense of all this database information? This multiplying abundance of digital things?  How do we make sense of navigable space? Our spatial meanderings? Our digital memories?

Tagging is one way; a language for talking about experience in cyberspace…for constructing identity through an interface to a database of experience.

Tagging and tagging interfaces are wonderfully simple. The tagging interface reverses the search interface: you freely associate terms with resource you are tagging so that you can find it in the future.  The notion of a tag, as metadata, isn’t new.  But the idea of letting anyone assign any label they want to anything IS new.

So why tag clouds are a good construction of identity?  First off, we actively collect and manage them (as opposed to search histories or page view histories).  With a folksonomy (i.e. collaborative tagging), there are no predefined categories or hierarchy, no natural ordering.  Tag clouds are a good way to construct a (usable) interface to a database of yourself because you do not need to decide who you are ahead of time.  Tags can be simple and understandable, as well as rich and expressive.  The virtual flaneur may not have time to keep a narrative diary of her travels, but she is willing to tag up digital destinations she finds meaningful.   [is this authorship?]

Current applications that use tagging focus on the utilitarian aspects of tagging for the user and community (e.g. searching, navigating, and browsing content).  Many studies focus on the empirical, quantitative insights that can be drawn from analyzing tags.  This is all quite fascinating. However, there doesn’t seem to be much focus on the experiential, qualitative aspects of tagging…on tags as related to identity and ongoing construction of an interface to a database of the self.

 A few interesting design directions…

 Merging/alternating hierarchies and clusters.

 EX:  the ability to “bundle” tags on delicious gives people more (top-down) control over the management and display of their tags

 Merging/alternating database and narrative; making syntagms more explicit.

 EX: visualizing the evolution of “interesting” tags in Flickr with a river and waterfall metaphor.

The final paper ongoing..

When designer is describing user.

Keywords: Ambiguity, Interpretation, Editoriality(Plausible), Authentic design  
I am not sure if I am successful to finish this final paper, since I have still studied in my interesting areas: The interpretation of experience from narrative to storytelling or from storytelling to narrative: recursive system or not. This is my current problem domain. I realized the relationship between the narrative of user and storytelling in my individual research. More specifically, I am curious how designers can create narrative/storytelling of Inter-subjectivity/subjectivity for interaction design by interpreting the language of user’s experience rather than the issues of interaction quality. This is not only introducing today’s researches of the interpretation of experience in HCI area but delving into the methodologies to interpret user’s experience and context. I will explain my curiosity based on hermeneutics cycle and post-modernism. Both the theories are representative to deploy my ideas (however, I won’t limit my ideas to the two theories only). In order to resolve, I will use Eco’s point of view, Abduction, which means un-canonical in terms of Interpretation and over-interpretation. (This predicates the issues of interpretation between two competing and polarizing paradigms: on the one hand Post-structuralism, De-constructivism; on the other hand Hermeneutics) In addition, I found the analogy between interpretation and editoriality, mentioned in the book, editorial engineering by Mathoka Seiko(松岡正剛), a visiting professor of Tokyo university, in that both are not objective but subjective, making us witness unexpected creations abundant. As a result, I came to think that the editoriality pursues the certain kinds of plausibility, the possible design solution for user’s ambiguity, in meta-interpretation process depending on intention/ editing axis. This is also likely to be useful in pointing out the limitations existed in HCI that usability methods such as heuristic manner reveal that the final result might be more difficult to understand user’s experience. As mentioned before, in the case study, I will introduce how designers/developers try to interpret user’s ambiguous narrative and how they as storytellers apply it to creating design story based on literature study in HCI. In this paper, I hope that the meaning of design is more comprehensive rather than merely pursuing the end for a certain goal that in the relation between designer and user and its interpretation, designing is to approach for “discovery” or “development”. Finally, I want to ask for myself what the authentic design methodology for user research is again.    

This is my current thought for the final paper. Not yet elaborated. I guess there are a number of weak points. Please let me know if you guys have good ideas. Especially, I am still confused with what kinds of case studies might be good examples for this theme, and what kinds of issues to analyze the case studies might be effective to deploy my idea. I don’t just want to introduce the case studies in the part. I want to analyze them by using the criteria that I set. However, I have no idea about it. Hmmmm      

AmazonKindle: Wireless Reading Device

I just aware that this design entered the market in this month and is currently sold out. This is not an innovative idea. Similar concepts like iRex Technologies’s Iliad and Sony PRS-505 has come in before. There is more information about Kindle here.

The product makes me think of what Marty said about the website which is designed by imitating the experience of reading a book. He has negative attitude toward that. I did not really understand the reason then because it looks kind of cool to me. When reading an article about Kindle released now, I think I might know what he meant. Kindle is similar to those website: it intend to copy the experience of reading an actual book, but it is not a book in fact.

Trying to use post-structuralism to analyze the “constructness” of this artifact (which means I am killing myself), I think Kindle is a hybrid of book and computer. I imagine myself using the design and feel the breakdown which might happen. It seems the design confuses me. Why designers choose to make the interface looks like real paper, rather than to make it just be the interface of computers, PDAs or mobile phones which we are familiar with? Kindle would like to keep the experience of reading a book but it can not provide the feeling of touching the cover and the texture of a paper. Why designers choose to add keyboard and scroll bar applications, rather than using touch screen to navigate? I did not mean the latter one would be a better solution. But the existing one will make me eager to buy a mouse, instead of using the scroll button to highlight a paragraph and add comment.

There are still lots of points which could be discussed. Personally, I still like to go to Barnes and Noble, looking around, and picking a book from shelves. Maybe I am not the person who is used to read text on the screen. But if it is possible, I still would like to use the design and see if it can change my reading habits. 400 bucks, is it a reasonable price? what do you think about the design?

The lack of the unity of the self & the soul

So we were introduced to the idea of the lack of the unity of the self in class.  This idea is really easy to see in online spaces.  We LOVE being other people, constructing who we are, “putting our best foot forward,” and role playing.  We can analyze all this using structuralism, see Joel Stein’s faux use of the concept etc.  It makes sense in an operational, analytical kind of way. Can, how, or should we try to reconcile this with other views of the self, notably religious views that hold to the view of an “eternal soul” something that is part of us, but not seen, that existed before we were born and will continue on after we die.

Well first of all we should say that poststructuralism doesn’t seem to make a lot of truth claims, normative claims, ontological claims, or epistemological claims.  In many instances it seems to say that those kinds of claims don’t exist.  I can’t claim to really know the my poststructuralism or postmodernism very well, so  I’m going to say I may be wrong here, but this is my reaction to my rudimentary understanding of this.

The sidestep: one can say that because poststructuralism doesn’t really have anything informative to say about ultimate reality or truth, that we should turn to other systems of thought or philosophy to inform us in those domains.  This seems rather reasonable to me, but it doesn’t really deal with the issue at hand.

The idea of a homunculus  seems to spring to mind.  This is the idea that inside each of us it a “little man” (which is what homunculus literally mean) that makes decisions.  Some have likened this to the soul.  Some people would look at the constructionist idea of the self and say, well what is doing the constructing?  There must ultimately be something doing all that.  Whatever that thing is, is the true self.  The counter argument to that seems to be that there is no homunculus, but simply the gestalt of brain matter and body that exists, there is no soul, no ultimate self, nothing foundational in a person.

While I dont’ think that poststructualism or postmodernism has a strong case for making ontological claims about the world (nor does it seem to me that such a way of looking at the world ultimately CAN make ontological claims, it seems that the whole point of it is that there is no ontology, no foundation, no ultimate anything) it is clear that these ways of thinking about the world can yield interesting insights into objects, whatever those objects may be: a conversation, a IT system, a book, or an organization.  In this way it is PRODUCTIVE, and operationalizable.  So let’s take this idea of the lack of the unity of the self and use it, let’s analyze online worlds using this kind of theory, it will yield something interesting.  Let’s leave out the kinds of things that talk about who we “really are” and the associated judgments.   When we want to talk about ultimate truth and who we really are, let’s leave that in the realm of metaphysics and religion.

So let’s get to a really interesting situation: you are designing some kind of interaction for a group of people who are religious, or spiritual and feel that there is a soul, a way that they should be, and an ultimate self.  Does this change the way we would analyze said system?  I say that given that case you design the interaction to support their worldview.

There is no self?

I was a little bit shocked by the post-structuralism. What is it talking about? There’s no self?

Yes, I am constructing myself when I was writing this post. I want myself doesn’t sound stupid, I don’t want anyone knows that I haven’t read Jeff’s reading for this week.

But that is me, isn’t it? The way I am constructing my post, is different from David, Mingxian and Yen-ning. I am wondering how does post-structuralism explain the author’s intention behind the construction of his book?

Post Structuralism = Reflective Design ?

I was wondering if anyone else made the connection between post structuralism and reflective design.  I personally see alot of similarities and overlaps. I guess it makes sense, considering both have roots in critical theory.

The playful transgression of existing rule systems (post structuralism) seems to be a great way for designers and users to reflect on technology and its relationship to human life (reflective design).

Do you guys agree?  What is the relationship?  Does understanding post structuralism help us become better reflective designers?  Or not?  What other theories and methods in HCI is post structuralism related to?

Ripe for a Post Sructural Field Day

from: http://www.strategy-business.com/li/leadingideas/li00051

 What companies need, therefore, is a new approach to demand creation that actually enables — make that forces — a company to be what it says it is. To borrow the phrase architect Jon Jerde made famous, that discipline is placemaking. Places are what provide the primary means for companies to demonstrate exactly what they are for both current and potential customers. Companies that embrace placemaking understand a fundamental dictum for contending with authenticity: The experience is the marketing. In other words, the best way to generate demand for any offering — whether a commodity, good, service, other experience, or even a transformation — is for potential (and current) customers to experience that offering in a place so engaging that they can’t help but pay attention, and then pay up as a result by buying that offering. Stop saying what your offerings are through advertising, and start creating places — permanent or temporary, physical or virtual, fee-based or free — where people can experience what those offerings, as well as your enterprise, actually are

Ugh.  Pine and Gilmore are famous for their concept/book “The Experience Economy: Work Is Theater & Every Business a Stage”  - which posits, essentially, the death of the age of products and services and the rise of the age of elaborately staged customer experiences that suck in consumers and entice them to pay for those experiences.   Gee, i wonder why business gets a bad rep?

It seems that Pine and Gilmore have made a (seemingly positive) shift to suggest that businesses, instead of advertising their staged experiences on trumped up billboard images that make the performance look better than it is, instead put the players themselves out on the sidewalk so that the customer can see a part of the actual performance, and thereby make an informed and authentic decision as to whether or not they want to pay for the full performance.  This is a method, of course, that has been used for a long time in software - in the form of a time-limited trial period  In other fields this is sometimes called “tryvertising.”

The loving post structuralist critique, however, would point out the fact that Pine and Gilmore seem to be missing a key implication of their own concept (and a valuable one) - that customers in “places” construct the conception of what “the enterprise actually is” - rather than just hear it from the company.  And the loving post structuralist recommendation would then extend Pine and Gilmore’s idea to say that the smart enterprise will build “places” that allow the customers to express who the enterprise “is” - to explicitly involve them in the process that already occurs - rather than to continue to pretend that it doesn’t.

This of course is a key point for us to consider in a class on Interaction Culture.  Our current culture of Interaction has enabled long-range, hyper-fast, persistent interactions through various connected digital technologies.   From a post structuralist standpoint, we could say that identities are constructed for and with more people simultaneously, which means that a business, a person, or a software product has even less control (if they ever did at all) over who they “are.”

Post-Structuralist Contradiction or Complementation

Certain aspects of a post-structuralist perspective are very cohesive and useful for analysis.  But how can post-structuralism prematurely claim we cannot discover truth about the world without stating this as its discovered truth?  Perhaps this might be perceived as a play on words, but doesn’t every theory attempting to explain the world indulge itself in some proclamation of truth?