Following the discussion of tool criticism, films and interaction design, I feel using film criticism for evaluating interaction designs is more likely based on their shared “principles” (e.g. The five claims of art/criticism Jeff described in his paper), not functions. “Tool” sounds very instrumental and one-way (i.e. only the creator can affect the process and output). I wonder perhaps we should take users’ participation into account. Like Bakhtin said, “my words are only half mine”. Film and interaction design may not be just a conduit in which creator(s)/designer(s) put their ideas, and viewers/users may not be just passive recipients of those ideas. This is more like toolmaker’s paradigm: Users actively participate in sense/meaning-making of these products(?).
Interaction Culture: The Class Blog
Official Class Blog of "I590: Interaction Culture" (Indiana University School of Informatics)
1 comment
Comments feed for this article
January 25, 2013 at 1:15 am
spoppesnp
For the semantic purpose alone, I like to use the term ‘artifact’ as it suggests a deeper connotation. All interaction designs are not tools just as all artifacts are not tools. The term allows for a broader use when describing the thing itself.