I am beginning to question the notion that film criticism might be used as an effective framework for evaluating interaction designs. Interaction designs are more often used as tools in a traditional sense. Film may be seen as a tool — but, only in a somewhat abstract sense. It may be a tool in the hands of the creator(s) to evoke an emotion, to inspire thought or to spread information. It may be used as a tool by the user to feel emotion, catharsis or to gain knowledge. But, unlike an interaction design, film does not often function as a traditional tool. Perhaps the key to using film criticism as a model for examining interaction is by using it to inform a more tool based framework such as activity theory.
I’m not finished with the reading for today. So, I apologize in advance if this is where we are headed.
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 24, 2013 at 12:16 pm
Katie O'Donnell
I can understand your concerns on how film criticism might map to interaction design. It’s good to question and reflect on these things. Of course film and interaction design critique frameworks might not map onto each other in a 1:1 fashion, however, as you suggest, they can be a model to inform critique for certain types of interactions
For example, it might be more difficult to map film criticism to something like…a web form or excel sheet. However, when looking at the overall look, feel, and experience of other types of IxD, such as a whole website, you can still use elements from film to see what sorts of emotions are evoked based on certain functions or design decisions that are made. Games might also be an example of how movement, camera angle, and storyline of how film and interaction design colide.
January 24, 2013 at 12:27 pm
jeffreybardzell
Activity theory–yayy! No time for a proper comment now, but the graphic is a really cool idea/question/commentary….
January 24, 2013 at 10:34 pm
jordanbeck
I don’t think we can split film and interaction design into such distinct categories. Aren’t there interaction designs that exist to accomplish many if not all of the ends you ascribe to film (i.e., inspire thought, spread information, gain knowledge, achieve catharsis).
A cursory glance at the android app store yields the following app categories: education, entertainment, health and fitness, lifestyle, social. I’d expect that searching within these categories would lead us to apps that accomplish many things that a nontraditional tool accomplishes.
So, I suppose I’m left with more questions:
What do you mean by traditional tool (a spoon? accounting software? a finger-clip blood oxygen detector? all of the above?)? why is it invalid to evaluate a traditional tool according to a nontraditional framework? wouldn’t carrying out such an evaluation lead to new, exciting insights?
January 25, 2013 at 12:57 pm
garyd65
Jordan — I’m not sure how qualified I am to answer these questions. But since this is a reply to my initial post I will respond. My understanding of activity theory may be somewhat lacking. It’s my understanding that activity theory is a transferable framework and as such the term “tool” could be applied to designed objects or even to methods that may not be considered traditionally as “tools.” I don’t believe that it is invalid to apply/adapt frameworks from one discipline to the other — quite the opposite. And so yes exciting insights could be had by experimenting in this way. Most of our models are adapted from other disciplines anyhow (activity theory comes from psychology).
For example I also love Peirce’s semiotics model (comes from linguistics(?)) and it could certainly influence my use of activity theory. But, if Peircian semiotics were used as the primary model, I don’t think it would provide the most effective means to criticize an interaction design. In many ways it is simply inappropriate and in some ways lacks the richness required to do so.
I do like the “ways in” model–largely because of its simplicity. I enjoyed class yesterday and clearly this models works quite well. But, if it is to be our primary model for criticism, I just wonder if it is the most appropriate. Certainly it is good to always be exploring different ways of looking at artifacts and one framework can certainly inform another. I bring up activity theory because I like the richness of it and the symbiotic nature of the nodes within the framework. I also like that it helps us to examine the stages and transitions the user goes through as an activity progresses from action to operation (though this is not reflected in the diagram).
Hugh Dubberly describes some needed changes in design methodologies (and I believe this applies to interaction criticism). He writes of a need to shift away from the notion of frameworks towards the notion expandable platforms. He also writes about the idea of shifting away from mechanical models toward biological or organic models. To me these shifts mean a move toward adaptable systems (or perhaps even adaptive systems) and away from rigid frameworks. This sort of thinking allows us to take arguably rigid frameworks such as activity theory, semiotics or “ways in” and consider ways that they may be augmented using different models in a secondary, tertiary, etc role.
ramble, ramble, ramble… end.
January 25, 2013 at 7:10 pm
jordanbeck
I’m keen on a comment you made in the second paragraph of this response (well, I’m keen on the whole response, but a piece of that paragraph stands out..):
“…I don’t think it would provide the most effective means to criticize an interaction design.”
This makes complete sense, but at the same time, doesn’t it depend on the interaction design?
I’m reminded of a paper we read last semester in Jeff’s class. In revisiting (i.e., harshly critiquing) Gould & Lewis’s 3 key principles of usability, Gilbert Cockton proposes that HCI needs to focus initially “on design purpose, and only subsequently on process means of methods, techniques, and tools.” In other words, maybe there is an interaction design best criticized with an activity theory model informed by Piercian semiotics. But couldn’t there also be an interaction design best criticized through a semiotics lens without the need to extrapolate it onto a more tool-based framework?
I’d respond the same way to the comment in your third paragraph about this particular approach being the most appropriate. It might be the most appropriate in some cases but not in others.
I guess I see the 4 ways in as one way — not necessarily the primary way — and I anticipate that, as we mature as interaction designers, we’ll develop the expertise to determine which is the most appropriate means of criticism for a given interaction design.
January 25, 2013 at 7:11 pm
jordanbeck
Also, I’d be interested to learn more about Hugh Dubberly. Did he make those comments in a paper or a book?