You are currently browsing Sakshi Gupta's articles.
Check out this really inspiring video of an interactive design concept called “The WaterBoard”. An amazing example of designing for experience.
It is an interactive board on which the users can manipulate the flow of water. The users can use a whiteboard pen to create lines, obstacles and objects in the path of water, and the water changes its path accordingly. Use a whiteboard eraser and water adjusts accordingly. It responds not only to whiteboard marker & eraser, but to human touch as well. And not just touch of hand, but the whole human body! The most fun part is seeing the plants and the lifeforms grow in water. It also gives a temporal quality of water. After a certain period, the stagnant water becomes stale, develops a greenish goo and little insects start circling above it.
It was truly an enjoyable experience for me, just watching this video. Cant believe how pleasurable it would be to interact directly with it. You dont believe my words…….check out the video for yourself 
As I am doing a structuralist analysis of the website (http://www.storyofstuff.com), I find myself continuously going on a path of jusifying the design of the website. I end up applying the various concepts that we have studied to justify why the design of the website is the way it is or my own insights about how the design of the website could have been improved based on these concepts/ theories. For an example, this is a portion of what I wrote:
Changes in either the syntagmatic or paradigmatic differences impact the understanding. The syntagm of the video is the sequence it follows. This video, being a documentary, follows the introduction, middle, climax sequence. However, it gives the user freedom to jump around the sequence and play with the syntagmatic structure by clicking on the various chapter links. The order in which the chapters are seen constructs the meaning of the film. So, there are 7! different meanings that can be constructed based on the sequence in which the web documentary is watched. A person who is watching this video for the first time needs to follow the syntagm structure in order to develop a complete understanding. However, there may be other times when the user needs to visit only particular chapters. The design achieves this by laying more emphasis on playing the documentary in a proper sequence. The position of the word “play” occupies the centre of the page, is the largest font size on the page, and dynamically moves to attract the user to click on it. The links for clicking on the chapters are less prominent comparatively. Also, these links are separated from the video by a gray space to underemphasize them as a part of the video.
As I look back at the reading of Kickasola, I believe that he was also trying to study and basically justify Kieslowski’s work.
However, I am still a bit sceptical. Am I on the correct path? Is this what we are expected to do?
I have been thinking about my final paper for this class for a couple of days now, but I am still a bit shaky about the approach that I am planning to take. It would be great to get feedback and peoples’ views on it.
So, the interaction design artifact that I have chosen is the website of “Story of Stuff“. The major portion of the homepage is occupied by a short 20 minute video written by Annie Leonard and sponsored by Tides Foundation & Funders Workgroup for Sustainable Production and Consumption. Thus the video would form a significant portion of my analysis for the website.
Some research of blog posts on this topic, revealed some interesting findings. This video has been quite a topic of discussion. I came across a blog-post about this video by a viewer that had around 130 comments. Review of the comments divulged that the video is interpreted in different ways by the viewers. I am planning to ground my analysis on these reactions but the unit of analysis is going to be the video. Thus the approach that I am currently thinking about is using the viewers’ reaction to the video, and linking it back to the elements in the video. What are the elements in the video, that lead to the various subjective responses that the people expressed in the blogs?
Pour in your comments and critique this approach….
I have often been amazed by the speed by which current events and news content are added to Wikipedia. I thus tried doing a semiotic analysis about what encourages users to actively create content on Wikipedia, even though the content that they create is not related to their profile directly. This is unlike most other Web 2.0 technologies like social networks and virtual reality games, where the content created is directly related to user’s online profile. I thus studied a Wikipedia page to do a structuralist analysis of what motivates users to create content.
Firstly, there is a “Login/Create account” link right on top of the page. On most of the websites which require authentication, we only see the words “Login”. Here, both “Login” and “Create Account” are spelled side by side. This encourages the addressee to create an account if he/she does not have one and also makes him/her feel at par with those who already have an account. This is the addresser’s way of saying that “we do not distinguish between registered old members and new members. Everyone has the same freedom and power to edit or create account”.
Secondly, the “Edit this page” tab on top is highlighted in bold as compared to the other tabs, emphasizing the creation of content. Most of the pages do not require the user to be even logged in, to create content.
Thirdly, there is a long listing of languages in the left hand column. The same page can thus be viewed in different languages. It accentuates the fact that wikipedia is not English-language centric but is global in nature, and thus motivates multi-ligual people to post content in their language as well.
Any other signifiers that you notice?
Here is the video that I am talking about:
The video is titled “Cloud Computing in Plain English”….
A Youtube search for the words “Plain English” brings up a number of videos – Wikis in Plain English, Twitter in Plain English, Zombies in Plain English, Blogs in Plain English, Podcasting in Plain English and so on. I am doing a semiotic analysis about why these videos have been titled as “——in Plain English”". What are the signifiers present in the videos that support the argument that the concepts in these videos are in Plain English or in other words are easy to follow, can be understood even by a layman and do not require any previous technical knowledge. To pick up a particular artifact, I would be using the “Cloud Computing in Plain English” video; though the semiotic analysis can be extended to ‘genre’ of such videos.
Firstly, the video makes use of rough, hand-sketched drawings on paper. The use of paper, hand-made drawings and limited amount of colors (mainly black and white) are important signifiers that the video is simple to follow. Paper prototypes are low-fidelity and have limited functionality, which makes them an effective communication medium to explain a concept because the viewers attention in focused onto the main concept and does not get distracted by other details. Also the actions of the presenter as he flicks away a paper or overlays a new sheet of paper on top of the others, are everyday actions of how we interact with paper.
In the beginning, the script uses humor to draw the viewer in. “What is cloud computing? Do you have to be sitting on a mountain with a computer among the clouds?….” Even, a person with no technical background, will not think that this is what cloud computing means. It invokes thoughts in the viewers – “No, I didnt think so. This is dumb.” The humor is related to the words of the concept : Cloud Computing; but uses it in a unique way such that it sounds ridiculous and funny to our common-sense. It thus creates a feeling of confidence in the viewer that the video would be simple to understand.
The use of simple, easy-to-undestand, common English, without the use of jargons is another signifier that supports the claim (Plain English) in the title of the video.
The use of everyday examples such as the electricity meter, or the taxi ride are also signifiers that signify that this video can be understood easily.
All these signifiers together help us reconstruct the addresse of this video. That, the intented reciepients of this video are not only people with technical background, but , anybody who understands English, uses the Internet and might want to know what Cloud Computing is.
When I started this blog post, I titled it “Youtube: The next-gen Google”. By the time I reached near the end of the blog, I had a topic to do a semiotic analysis of, for next week’s blog post. Thanks Jeff , writing does help to think deeply.
Cloud Computing is the hot topic doing the rounds of the IT industry nowadays. I heard about it a few weeks back but never took the time out to understand exactly what it was. Today, when I came across the words again, I realized that it was time to gather some information about the words “Cloud Computing”.My instinct would have been to google for the words “Cloud Computing” and click on the Wikipedia link that would have came up in the first or second place. But I was surprised that the first thing I did, was not to google for a wikipedia link, but instead went on to Youtube and searched for the terms “Cloud Computing”.
A number of videos came up with titles like “What is cloud computing”, “Explaining cloud computing” and so on. But the snapshot of the third link in the search results caught my eye. It was called “Cloud Computing in Plain English”, and had a white background with hand-drawn lines and sketches on it. I was able to get a basic understanding of the term by watching this simple, easy to understand, fun five-minute video. I highly recommend watching this video if you are not familiar with the words “Cloud computing” or plainly as an example of explaining concepts in simple terms.
I realized that this genre of videos are increasing in popularity and are being used extensively to explain new concepts and products in simple lay-man terms. Hmm…a good interaction design artifact for a semiotic analysis.
Wait for my post next week……….. 
In the activity theory paper, the author presents an example of “Mark is driving to Aunt Sally’s house”. So Mark has an outcome or motivation to reach Aunt Sally’s House. To achieve that outcome, he does a number of activities like calling up Aunt Sally to inform her, checking weather, printing directions, driving to the destination etc. So, if I try to fit the Hammering/Hammerness theory into the Activity theory. Hammering would be each of the individual activities that the user performs. In order to achieve each of these activities, he makes use of various tools (Hammers) like his mobile to call up Aunt Sally; using local newspaper to check weather; using his computer, printer, internet, Google Maps to print directions; his car to drive to the destination and so on. And Hammerness would be the properties of each of these tools.
As I interpret it, Heidegger’s main argument is that we humans, give priority to the act of doing/activities rather than concentrating on the Hammerness or the properties or the reality of the tools that we use to do those actions.
P.S. Here, I am using the words actions and tools in very broad sense. Actions dont just mean physical actions that we do, but thinking about something is also an action.
This is my first attempt of trying to do critical analysis of storytelling over the internet using a phenomenological approach. One of the specific examples that I have been inspired by has been “The Story of Stuff“. Prof Eli Blevis introduced us to this short 20-minute video in one of his classes last semester and it looks at the underside of our production and consumption patterns. It was an introduction to me about the issues of mass-consumerism and sudden surge of interest in the topics of sustainable design and living.
I have watched this video a few times now, though I have not done a closed reading of it yet. However there are a few things that have struck me – the sketches illustrating the artifacts used in the video are animated and constantly flickers (probably to emphasize the state of urgency and importance to concentrate on sustainability), the presenter makes use of a large number of facts while trying to make her argument, the camera focus changes a lot from the presenter onto the sketches or drawings.
To develop a phenomenological account of this video, I have thought of the following approach: to do a closed reading of the video and look for connections or patterns in the video. Analyze how these patterns affect the way viewers perceive the video. What were the directors intention behind them?
Also, in order to develop a deeper understanding of how viewers create meaning out of this video, I am thinking of looking into blogs, discussion forums and other available resources where viewers might have expressed their thoughts about this video.
These are just my very initial thoughts of how I think about approaching this problem. What do you think? I am looking forward to hear others feedback on this.
After our discussion about film theory, I have been pondering over the question Jeff asked at the end of last class about what would be an example of realistic vs formalist interaction in our field of Interaction Design.
Here is one that comes to my mind….
The use of Avtars compared to using the individual’s original picture as a profile picture on an Instant Messenger or a social network. However, here the individual is the director of the content and controls the decision about staging; or about how closely the profile picture is a reflection of the self. On the realistic end, individuals put their original photos as a profile picture. And on the formalistic end, they create imaginative or idealized version of the self in the form of avatars.
Nowadays I am in the habit of trying to figure out whether the author is taking a phenomenology or structuralist approach while I do my readings. I was feeling confident that now I had a better grasp and understood the difference between phenomenological and structuralist approach …….up until…I came across this:
In one of the readings, Smith refers to Blumer and says that “Blumer insists that people relate to each other and to objects on the basis of shared meanings.” My instinct on reading this sentence was …”of course Blumer takes a structuralist approach, as he says that we make sense of the objects around us based on their meanings..”. As soon as this thought crossed my head, a counter thought just popped up…”Hang on, is this not a phenomenological approach as it is basically inter-subjectivity that Blumer is talking about”
Actually, I am confused right now….
Is Blumer taking a purely phenemonolical approach and his use of the word “shared meaning” basically means “shared understanding” and he is indeed refering to intersubjectivity? Or is he probably trying to mix and match the structuralist and phenemonological approach together?
Recent Comments