You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘class notes’ category.
This is a quesition about ideology (acknowledgement/push back) and possibly film trolling…
In film scripts, we take the opportunity to expose the social normalcy with which we abide by, fight, etc. Lines such as: ”I thought the guy is supposed to rescue the girl” , ”isn’t the guy suppose to propose to the girl”, or “he’s not the average jock” (made these up but still relatively common). These lines project out of the screens immediate scenario and attempt to respond to our beliefs in that moment–which might agree or conflict with what we are immediately seeing. These lines may be highlighting the influences of industrialized culture or our hermeneutics of suspision…But I still have this question:
How would you define lines such as these and are they similar to trolling? Granted, my only knowledge of trolling is from our class discussion.
Scott Summit: Beautiful artificial limbs
I love this Scott Summit guy please check this 11min talk out. I would love to hear your thoughts–if mine are too long skip my thoughts, listen, and share!!! But I haven’t been on here in a minute and I have much to say!
It was like he took the words right out of my mouth…
I have tried and tried to challenge myself to think outside the proverbial box (i.e. what I have already worked on) when considering my final writing. And I went online today looking eagerly for some interactive technology that resonated with me. The search was seemingly futile until I happened upon this Ted Talk (hopefully I can embed it properly). And then I fell in love with an interaction that went beyond the interaction to the objectively subjective.
In class yesterday we discussed the difference between the subjective and the objective and how both are important. I agreed with Vince’s definition of both of the above terms. To articulate here what I thought there, I would define subjective as that interpersonal felt experience where what one is experiencing, in the experience based on another’s expression, is allowing for the experiencer to draw upon their past experiences–their life world. It’s definitely personal as well as impressed upon/affected by the world around it. This does leave me to question what are the similarities and differences between ‘an experience’ based on Turner, Victor. Dewey, Dilthey, and Drama: An Essay in the Anthropology of Experience and G. definition of life worlds?
“Formative experiences are highly personal (pg35)
“Meaning arises when we try to put what culture and language have crystallized from the past together with what we feel, wish, and thinking about our present point in life.” (pg33)
“Experience urges toward expression” (pg37)
Maybe it’s that lifeworld is more static like a noun where as An Experience is more a verb (based on quote 37). Would love your thoughts on this as well.
As you all know I am big on experience particularly subjective experience and meaning making. I loved this Ted Talk because he has accomplished my ultimate particular. He and his team have created an opportunity to do meaning making via design—with and for the ‘receiver’ so to speak.
Objectivity in my expert opinion :) is the ability to articulate not just the quality of the text based on how one felt but draw parallels, contrast, and make inferences on interpretation that can be supported by credible sources. This is definitely a much more outward reaching agenda to validate and persuade. Whereas the other is to reflectively express. I’d take any criticism on this topic.
In closing, when we were concluding our discussion on both these terms we talked about how you can’t really have objective without subjective—moreover, everything is subjective. We concluded that it is not just one or the other but how we merge and appropriate both together. It is in the quality of the harmony that we pinpoint rigor. What I love about the prosthetic interaction in the Ted Talk is that they are bringing that personal into the general. And I completely concur that this is capturing the spirit of the designer as well as the designed for. This is me to the utmost!
Hey all, if there are other people that are using semiotics besides me, I thought it might be worthwhile to pool our resources. We all have the same readings available from the class, but I thought maybe we could share other readings we find from non-class sources.
If anyone is interested let me know and I’ll set up and share a dropbox folder. Just leave your email.
So I wanted to share with you all my writing topic and get your feedback. It is rough around the edges; and I have two directions I have been thinking of. Luckily this is a writing assignment that will never be written 
.
I began with Collingwoods article on Craft vs Art. When I first read it my mind jumped to Six Sense and I attempted to situate the interaction (and I am using this film as an interaction) within this article.
So I have been thinking of tying these two thoughts:
1. How the Director of the film is Directing the audience (110) through a myriad of stimulus “to produce desired reaction” (111) and
2. How the film is a craft but embedded within it is a work of art–’expressed emotion’ (111).
However while I was thinking about this Art within a Craft I began to think about Video Diaries–as a separate interaction/paper idea. For this interaction I have been considering the direction of Crafted Expression: Emergent emotion within a structured medium. The mixing of manipulation and emotional discovery. I don’t even know if this is clear or just rambling so I will also include rant in my categories.
Feedback desired!!!
I was thinking about signs yesterday in our discussion and as soon as the signifier was “Dog” my mind jumped to the signified as the idea of a “homie” (lol). As I sat there my mind began to question how does Ebonics fit into this discussion of signs? In the words of Jeff I thought this could be a “Juicy” topic for discussion. In questioning if this is applicable to the class I thought this is definitely within the realm of culture and then I thought about how Ebonics puts a complex twist on ‘visual’ culture.
I thought of movies where white guys, black nerds even, would attempt to use “Ebonics” and they were the wrong sign to use the sign language. So then the rules are broken. So this concept of Ebonics and people as a sign within the sign language made me see that within that language Everything is a sign.
Do you all think that this is true in all languages? What do you all think about the process of becoming an acceptable sign (a movie that depicts that in the context of Ebonics would be Bulworth http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118798/ )?
The iPhone home screen offers some interesting insights into the ideas we’ve been studying in the past week.
In this example, we are looking at the idea of the home screen itself, not necessarily its individual components. Here the sign is at first the home screen area itself. Yet this screen is also comprised of a number of other connected signs that are integral to the understanding of the home screen itself. These discrete signs include the home button, to access the screen, the navigational cues near the bottom of the home screen, the icons present within the home screen, the dock located at the bottom of the screen, and even to some extent the gestural interaction needed to access Notification Center. Each contributes collectively to the concept of the home screen.
The signifier can be said to be the home screen after navigation to it, but also the idea of the home screen contained within the phone itself. The signified in this case is the idea presented by the home screen that it is a launching point for any and all interactions the phone provides, as dictated by installed apps and software functionality. Even the term, “home,” infers a number of ideas about the screen itself. The idea presupposes a familiar place in which we collect all the useful things we use in our daily lives. This concept, along with the dock as a launching point for the most common applications in use, begin to look at the ideas of the indexical signification offered within the home screen.
Included in the indexical understanding would be the the idea that, after holding your finger down on an icon, the icons on the screen begin to shake and buttons appear at the top-left corner of each icon, suggesting an action is needed. As your finger swipes across the screen, the screen responds with “tension” when you attempt to swipe out of the boundaries of the home screen. The screen suggests an iconic representation of a drawer sliding open, a Lazy Susan, or a conveyor belt, serving up your apps.
We’ll explore a bit more of the concepts suggested by the phone in the comments.
As everyone enters the final grind for the IC paper, I have a few notes and reminders, not in any order.
- The paper requirement is a CHI long paper. That means that you must use the CHI long paper format (it is linked here), and you can write up to 10 pages, including everything (references, images, title page, abstract, copyright notice, keywords–the whole shebang in 10 pages or less). Thus, depending on how many images you use, how many references you have, etc., your word count may vary. There is no 10,000 word requirement; earlier this semester I used that merely as a shorthand for about how long a CHI paper typically is. You may also turn in less than 10 pages. Anything less than 8, though, starts to look incomplete and that can affect the grade adversely.
- My office is being moved Thursday, which means I won’t be available for meetings. To make up for that, I will make myself available late Friday morning and Friday afternoon (I have a faculty meeting in the middle). I am more than happy to meet people one-on-one in 30-minute slots, so please email to sign up.
- If you have specific questions or problems, feel free also to email me directly. Feel free also to nag if I don’t reply in a timely enough way. I won’t be offended by polite reminders.
That’s it! Good luck with the writing and I’m looking forward to your papers!!
The dominant position in design history designates the trend or topic of the design production. So mass-production, industry, hard material and more male-biased objects become professional because these ones are men’s preference. Oppositely, soft material, dressmaking, domestic and other feminine-preferred objects play less important roles in design field, because men in power choose to ignore the significance of them. What if design field developed with feminine dominance? If so, is it possible that domestic, soft material and dressmaking and other feminine-preferred objects become professional now?
Now feminism has a voice. Bringing feminine voice into critique of masculine’s production is about new account of male-biased production in different perspective, and also feminine voice causes to re-discovery or re-evaluate the traditional feminine objects. I think it is not enough to simply insert the feminine institution into a structure and hierarchy that is original male-defined. They can’t just easily be compatible. I want to know how feminine approach combines with male-defined production during process, not just used as a critique account after production, or pursuing a feminine-dominant trend.
I forgot to put it on Oncourse apparently, but anyway, you can easily access the paper here:
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1753521
(Don’t forget that you will need to be on the IU network or log into the IU VPN to download it for free.)
Recent Comments