DDR at hand

So, as some of you may know, me and Casey go play DDR just about every Friday afternoon.  As some of you might not know, Casey is insanely good at DDR.

It was funny last Friday, though… There were a couple of new interactions that happened.  First, we gave the Pump it Up machine a try… It has 5 buttons instead of 4 like DDR.  Later on, Casey gave Doubles on DDR a try.  Doubles is where you use both pads and have to dance across the whole machine.

Now, Casey is insanely good at singles/versus DDR but I noticed that he was having trouble with the other two.  So, we got into a short discussion…

Normally, Casey doesn’t even think about the DDR pad when he’s playing, but it was obvious that on the 5 button game and on the doubles he was having to look at his feet sometimes and and think about what he was doing.

This seems like a good example of going from Ready-at-hand and Present-at-hand.  We disagreed on what it was that was becoming Present-at-hand though…

Was it his mindset/DDR knowlege?  Or was it the pad?  Or was it his feet?  I argued that it was the pad because it was the tool he was using to play the game.  Especially on the 5 button machine, he had to consciously focus on the buttons because he wasn’t used to where they were.  But in the end, we weren’t too sure.

Anyway, that is all for today.

sketchnotes^2 … comicsnotes

So, I mentioned the other day that I can’t read, which is why McCloud’s books were so great for me.  I guess I’m just a really visual learner.   I’m also, as many of you know, a comic artist.  So, I really don’t know why I didn’t think of this sooner:

Comics Notes:

First page… doodling and random cartoons

Iteration and panel borders…

The notes from Erik’s class today… Just another example.

Anyways… thought someone might think it’s relevant.

Understanding Comics

As some of you may know, I’ve been trying to cram so that I can speak intelligently to Scott McCloud when he’s here next week.  I just finished his first book, Understanding Comics.  It was amazing.

First of all, let me say that one of the primary reasons I found it compelling was its format.  Unlike many other ‘theory books’ Understanding Comics is more or less a comic book.  Panels and word balloons… the whole shebang.

A lot of people hear me saying things like, “Too many words” and “I can’t read”.  It’s kind of a joke, but it’s kind of not.  The way my brain works, I can only pick up every other paragraph of a paper before my mind starts wandering.  Probably not something to brag about in a blog for a class that requires a 10 page paper at the end.    Anyway, as a comicker (one who makes comics) myself, my brain was better able to soak in the contents of this book, and, unlike most of the papers I’ve read, my mind has been blown.

Even though it seems at first to be a ‘comic about comics’, McCloud really gets to the root of comics on a psychological, subconscious, theory-rich level.

How is this relevant to this class (besides being awesome)?  He’s got a chapter called “The Vocabulary of Comics” which boils down to visual iconography and how we interpret those icons… I’d like to call this semiotics.

He has another chapter called “Blood in the Gutter” which is about how we interpret the space between the panels in a comic based on our own experience.  People will ’see’ the comics in different ways even though they see the same panels on the page because their own experiences creates the closure between the panels.  Phenomenology?

Anyway, my conclusion is that Scott McCloud is a genius and I’m looking forward to reading his other two books.  I highly suggest reading at least this first one to anyone.

Auteur Aliens

I’m not quite done reading this Mulhall article about Aliens, but something struck me and I feel a need to write about it now.

While not entirely familiar with the theory, it seems to me that Mulhall applies auteur theory to his critique of the Alien films.  Personally, I don’t agree with the idea that movies are ‘owned’ by the directors in most cases, but I think a critique like this one can get away with it, as the ‘vision’ would mostly be that of the director.

I like the paper and agree with most of what the man is saying, but I discovered a glaring flaw.

“Jean-Pierre Jeunet implicitly accepts the totality of Fincher’s critique of Cemeron… by making the protagonist of his film not Ripley herself but rather her clone.”

I could be wrong, but Jean-Pierre Jeunet didn’t really make the protagonist a clone…  Joss Whedon actually wrote the movie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118583/fullcredits#writers).

I typically would take Wikipedia’s information as a grain of salt, but I think its information is probably good enough to illustrate a point in a blog post, especially considering that this statement is actually sourced:

“Whedon had to rewrite the script in a way that would bring back the Ripley character, a task he found difficult.  The idea of cloning was suggested by producers David Giler and Walter Hill, who opposed the production of Alien Resurrection as they thought it would ruin the franchise.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien:_Resurrection#Origins)

So it wasn’t even the WRITER’s idea to have a clone, much less the director.

The only Aliens movie that could be considered a work of the director would be Aliens, directed AND written by James Cameron. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090605/fullcredits#writers)

I find Mulhall’s thoughts interesting and provocative, but with the exception of his thoughts on the second film, I have no choice but to call bullshit on this entire paper.  With such a blatant disregard for the facts, the man has lost credibility in my eyes.

I don’t know… I’ve just been feeling very… ANGRY lately… Just in general.  Maybe it’s the moon?

Interaction Critique vocabulary.

So, it was stated that it’s important for HCI to have its own vocabulary for critique. There’s currently not a standard, from my understanding, but who is responsible for creating such a vocabulary? I would imagine it would be smart people who have studied this subject far longer than I have. But would it be inappropriate for a fledgling interaction designer, such as myself, to use my own metaphors that are, perhaps, not widely known in the community? Obviously, I should be using what vocabulary there is, and probably metaphors that are borrowed from things like graphic design and literature critique.

But if I’m critiquing something, and there’s a metaphor that makes sense to me which accurately describes the subject but is not widely used (or not used at all) in the field, or related fields, should that not be included in the critique? For example, if I were to say something is “Kojima-esque”… there are some people who would know what I’m talking about, but I have a feeling that most researchers and HCI practitioners wouldn’t understand. But is that wrong to include? I mean… current critiques may include references to things I’ve never heard of, but those references are referenced by smart, studied people. I imagine I would have to explain the reference, but even so, should that be included?