Dexter

Dexter is one of my favorite shows and I believe there are a few Dexter junkies in our class too. I wanted to talk about the title sequence of this show from a semiotic perspective. I was wondering if we could do a small experiment.

• For those of you who have NEVER watched this show before or does not know anything about what the show is, I request you to just watch the title sequence without reading anything about it. Please post what you think about the title sequence and what you guess the show may be about!
• For those of you who know what the show is about – I think the title sequence is nothing short of brilliance. It conveys so perfectly what the show is about. It was done by Digital Kitchen and won an Emmy for “Outstanding Main Title Design.” My take is that Design Kitchen use a heavily semiotic approach to convey the spirit of the show. They do the same thing with the title sequence of TrueBlood as well.

While we are in the topic of Dexter, I came across this limited edition T-shirt released by ShowTime which costs a whopping $475. Apart from the obvious word play, I really liked the way ShowTime used the street art aesthetic for the graphic style. Needless to point out the t-shirt was released early January this year when Obama’s campaign was in full swing. Talk about being immersed in culture! I think that the use of street art as a visual style communicates the feeling of “one among the people” – a message relevant for both the personalities. What do you guys think?

Jalou

Full disclosure: I ♥ Dolce & Gabbana and I am going to be unabashedly biased towards anything that has a D&G tag on it.

Here are a few facts:

• For those of you who have not heard about Dolce & Gabbana, it is one of the biggest (and one of the best IMO) luxury fashion houses of the world and is based in Milan.
• Sony Ericsson has collaborated with D&G and released a limited edition of their phone called Jalou. The name of the phone is derived from a french word jaloux which means jealousy!
• The D&G edition is plated with 24 carat gold and is faded-rose in color. There are other colors but they are do not carry the D&G tag on them.
• The retail price of the phone is $800 and the price of the D&G edition is undisclosed. D&G is known for it’s notriously high pricing especially since it’s a luxury brand.

Since we have been reading some fashion texts and trying to apply that to interaction design, I thought this was a particularly interesting artifact to talk about. We have talked so much about a phone like the iPhone where owning the latest tehcnology is fashion. So I was wondering how does it work when it comes to something like the Jalou. Clearly it cannot be discarded as “advertising” and “branding”. It gets even more interesting when you compare the advertisements of the same phone – one made by Sony Ericsson and the other by D&G.

Thoughts/comments?

Dolce & Gabbana

Sony Ericsson

Practical Suggestions for Semiotic Approaches

So, some of you seem interested in semiotic approaches, but also are uncertain as to how to pursue one. For example, Yujia writes in her blog post,

I don’t see how camera angle, depth of the field and montage can be applied to interaction

More generally, Yujia writes that she is not quite sure how to use some of the semiotics readings to do her own. I suspect that she is not alone in this, and so what I want to do in this post is maybe shed some light on how you can use those papers as models for your own thinking. I’ll start with Yujia’s point about some of the film theory.

Those aspects of film she mentions all have an effect on the way (or style with which) reality is presented. A low camera angle (looking up at the actor) magnifies the actor, making her or him look bigger, more imposing; a high camera angle likewise diminishes the actor. Thus, decisions like that establish a relationship between the audience and the actor–of superiority or inferiority, in the case of vertical camera angle.

How do interactions present reality? How do they structure users’ relationships with their reality? What paradigmatic alternatives could have been chosen that were not? (Example: every shot of an actor must have a camera angle; there is no such thing as no camera angle at all. But among all the possible camera angles–close, far, low, high, etc.–that could have been chosen, why was that one chosen for that shot?)

Notice what I am doing here. I am not trying to directly apply a concept from film semiotics to interaction in a literal way (though I would say that you can apply some film theory directly to interaction in the case of cinematic interactions, e.g., contemporary video games). Instead, what I am doing is asking, “what does this semiotic theory actually do for film?” Then I ask, “what could fill the same kind of role for interaction”? Thus, instead of trying to apply camera angle or depth of field to interaction, instead I ask, “given that camera angle and depth of field get at issues of ways that cinema presents reality in certain ways to viewers, how do interactions present reality to users, and what are the techniques and options interaction designers use to present reality in certain ways?”

We can apply a similar approach to other readings.

Let’s look at Entwistle’s power dressing paper, which looks at ways that clothes are enmeshed in discourses that construct subject-positions for people who wear them. If a woman wears a feminine uniform, she is constructed as a “laborer” with no upward mobility. If she wears a power suit, she is constructed as a “professional” and even an “entrepreneur.” (We talked about this in class last week.)

How might that apply to interaction? Well, what are the ways that interactions construct subject-positions for people to inhabit? Example: OneStart and Oncourse look different for students and faculty. What views, data sets, and operators are available to faculty but not students? And vice-versa? How are these two types of users constructed as subjects by the system? To what extent do these discursive constructions align with the empirical reality/needs of actual users (to rephrase: what is the difference between Oncourse users-as-addressees and Oncourse users-as-recipients)?

Another example.

In the resume cover letter example we talked about weeks ago, the phatic relationship between addresser and addressee was one of polite, formal submission. The addressee was constructed in a position of power–to decide who gets a valuable resource (the job)–and the addresser is constructed as a candidate seeking both the job itself, and more immediately, the approval and interest of the addressee. The point here is that the cover letter establishes a phatic relationship between addresser and addressee that is inscribed with a power relation.

Can you think of a software application that just by using it puts people in phatic power relations? I can imagine, for example, project management software differentially empowers managers and employees. I can imagine even a calendar application in which some types/classes of users publicly post their entire calendars for all colleagues to see, while other classes of users do not, and the latter class signs themselves up for meetings with those whose calendars are always available. There is a surveillance aspect to such calendars, and while one person (the latter) is always able to take the action of signing up to meet the other (the former, whose calendar is always posted online), the former cannot sign up to meet with the latter, because the latter’s calendar is not available to view!

So these are some examples I just made up. The point is that I encourage you to abstract a little from your readings in order to apply them to interaction; don’t try to apply them directly. Instead, ask the question, what does the semiotic approach get for a film/fashion critic, and then seek to get that same thing for yourself for an interaction.

Dear Jeff

Please post comments on our outlines so I know if I should feel smart or dumb (and so we can use your comments for our paper). Thanks.

CJ

Choosing an Interaction

I’m trying to choose an appropriate amount of interaction to choose for the  paper.  I think I want to work with something from the New Super Mario Bros for Wii since I’ve been playing it so much as it is, but I’m not sure what part of the interaction to talk about.  I like the idea of tackling the difference between playing with one player and two players or comparing the interaction to a much older version of the Super Mario Bros saga (Super Mario 1 or 3 for NES).  I’m not sure if such a comparison is appropriate or if that is tackling too much.

I’m also concerned about what part of the interaction to take on.  Do I look at a  level or maybe a world?  Or do I focus on something really small like using what James terms the “whirly-bird helmets”?

"Whirly-bird helmet"

My back up to this choice is working with text messaging on an iPhone.

Pour Me Another

(please note that the thoughts contained herein do not reflect my own opinion of Alcoholic Anonymous, but rather those I believe are being communicated by the album art under consideration)

I’ve been kickin’ back with some truly awesome Minneapolis hip-hop lately, and I was admiring the album art of Atmosphere’s “You Can’t Imagine How Much Fun We’re Having.” It depicts the artist sitting alone, bored and fuming, in what appears to be an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting.

But then, I realized upon closer inspection that there’s nothing in the imagery that says AA. How in the heck did I reach this conclusion? What clues were contained within this text that allowed me to interpret it so?

• The heavy metal doors symbolize a cold and impersonal public space, perhaps a gymnasium in an old school. The tell-tale green color of the doors and wall harken back to 1950s construction, represent a space that is purely utilitarian, and has not been remodeled for human aesthetic needs.
• The concrete floor furthers the cold, impersonal, depressive nature of the space.
• The windows are covered with grocery bags held up with masking tape, suggesting that whatever happens in this room is intended to be private and hidden from the outside world. However, the grocery bags are on the other side of the glass, so anyone on the outside could easily pull them down. I believe this is actually a flaw in the artistic rendering of this scene.
• The circular lock and deadbolt indicates that the door is locked, further communicating that this is a private affair.
• The rug shows that someone, probably with the best of intentions, had tried to superficially brighten up the space. The fact that it’s ugly, brown and outdated represents the futility of this effort. Rather than improving the warmth and humanity of the space, the rug instead becomes a symbol itself for the depressive nature of the meeting.
• The folding chairs indicate that this meeting is a temporary repurposing of this space. The fact that they’re covered in cheap fabric and padding further indicates a futile attempt to bring comfort to this negative experience.
• The blue folding chair on the right is at a slight angle, following the angle of the circular rug. Both of these act as incredibly subtle signals that people for this event will be seated in a circular arrangement. This implies that this is not a hierarchal meeting between, say, a panel and attendees, but a flat arrangement between so-called equals.
• The fact that the artist is smoking, in flagrant disregard of the posted “No Smoking” sign, symbolizes his rejection of this event. That there is a “No Smoking” sign posted in the first place shows that this is likely a meeting between people who may stereotypically be smokers, and that the subjects covered may be stressful to the point where people would find themselves needing to partake in a comforting, familiar habit.
• The artist’s body language further communicates his boredom and rejection of this event. It is as though the depressive superficiality of his surroundings are symbolic of his own belief of the superficiality of this event; that discussing his alcoholism with others isn’t going to do anything to change him or his behaviors.

Hang Em’ High…

So the other night I decided to watch a Clint Eastwood western. I watched Hang Em’ High for the first time; since it was one of those movies I had wanted to watch and always eluded me (available on Hulu).

I really enjoyed it, but in particular, there was one scene that got me thinking about ready-to-hand, and present-to hand. I know Ben brought up this point earlier when he wrote about his experience with Casey playing DDR. Though my point is really that in the scene I watched, the director used some interesting techniques to really capture the visual action, and make Clint Eastwood’s handling of a gun look very ready-to-hand.
Here’s the scene, where Clint Eastwood’s character (who is an expert gunman) guns down a criminal that had tried to kill him earlier:

I know this film is a work of fiction, but it is kind of scary to fathom that there are people that are so well trained to use firearms that their guns become ready-to-hand. Then their intention to kill becomes reality, almost as if their mind kills another person instead of their hands and a gun. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people; well, while I don’t completely agree with that saying, in the case of this scene, I’d say the ready-to-hand-ness of the gunman is pretty well portrayed.

Now that I’ve said that, since we’ve been talking about sequences lately, I thought I’d do a sequence analysis so the director’s design is out there, in front of us, and we can think about how he used camera/film techniques to portray Clint Eastwood’s character as a tough, pissed off, expert gunman who can shoot so well with a revolver that it’s ready-to-hand to him.

Shot # & description	Shot Type	Dialogue
#1 Eastwood tipping his hat, leaving jail	medium	N/A
#2 Worried look of local Sheriff, looks back at grinning prisoner	Close up	N/A
#3 Eastwood strolling calmly across the street, lighting up a cigar (striking a match on his boot), then noticing something important he sees	Continuous medium, zoom in to close up upon realization of something	N/A
#4 a brown horse that Eastwood recognizes	medium	N/A
#5 Eastwood starts walking towards the horse for closer inspection	Close up, zooms out to long shot and follows Eastwood	N/A
#6 The saddle reads the word “JED”. It is Eastwood’s previously owned saddle that was stolen from him	Close up	N/A
#7 Eastwood then turns towards the saloon, and goes in to find one of the criminals he’s looking for	Continuous long shot follows Eastwood into Saloon	N/A
#8 Eastwood’s reflection in the bar mirror as he bursts through the doors	Long Shot, pans following bartender till Eastwood comes into view, follows Eastwood as he walks left, and closer towards the camera, stopping once he reaches the criminal he’s looking for	JED (Eastwood): You’re under arrest Reno.
#9 Reno responds to the Marshall (Eastwood) while he’s drinking liquor	Close up	RENO: You talkin’ to me Marshall?
#10 Eastwood looks pissed	Close up	JED: You’re name’s Reno, isn’t it?
#11 Reno responds to the Marshall (Eastwood) while he’s pouring liquor	Close up	RENO: Look Marshall, I dunno what kind of town you’re runnin’ here….
#12 Reno is pouring liquor, ignoring Eastwood, and Eastwood is getting angrier	Medium shot	JED: This isn’t my town.RENO: Well I wouldn’t know…see, I just rode in….gonna wash down some trail dust..
#13 Shot Reno, with Eastwood extinguishing his cigar into Reno’s glass of liquor	Close up	RENO:…and
#14 Full shot of Eastwood still with his cigar in Reno’s liquor. Eastwood looks pissed	Medium shot	N/A (stare down)
#15 Reno stands up	Close up	RENO: All right Marshall, whaduya say I done?
#16 Eastwood looks pissed	Close up	JED: You don’t remember me, do you?
#17 Reno	Close up	RENO: No.
#18 Eastwood looks pissed, pulls down his scarf to reveal his hangin’ scar	Close up	JED: When you hang a man, you better look at him!
#19 Reno looks scared as hell	Close up, zooms in to Extreme close up of Reno’s scared face	N/A
#20 Eastwood’s scar is visible to the audience	Extreme Close up, pans up from scar to Eastwood’s eyes. He looks pissed.	N/A
#21 Reno looks scared, starts to back away from Eastwood as camera follows	Close up	N/A
#22 Reno continues to back away from Eastwood. Angle makes Eastwood look tall and towering, and Reno looks small like a scared little kid.	Medium shot	N/A
#23 Eastwood continues his stare down, and covers his neck again	Close up	N/A
#24 Shot of Reno backing away, with Eastwood in the foreground	Long shot of Reno, Eastwood in front of camera, over his shoulder	JED: Don’t go for that gun Reno…
#25 Shot of Eastwood with a low camera angle, makes him look tall and in control	Close up, low angle	JED: ..I need you alive.
#26 Reno pulls his gun to kill Eastwood	Long shot of Reno, Eastwood in front of camera, over his shoulder	N/A
#27 Quick, clear shot of Reno pulling his gun on the Marshall	Medium shot	N/A
#28 Quick shot of Eastwood pulling his gun fast, in reaction to Reno	Long shot of Reno, Eastwood in front of camera, over his shoulder	N/A
#29 View of Reno’s eyes widening as he is shot and killed	Extreme Close up	N/A
#30 Eastwood looks pissed as he shoots and kills Reno, pulling the trigger again and again	Medium shot, low angle	N/A
#31 Eastwood continues to gun down Reno as Reno falls down over the barrels of whiskey	Long shot of Reno, Eastwood in front of camera, over his shoulder	N/A
#32 Reno collapses and falls from his feet, dead, whiskey pouring on his face.	Medium shot, pans to follow Reno’s corpse falling to the floor	N/A
#33 Eastwood looks satisfied as smoke clears from his gun	Medium shot, low angle	N/A
#34 Shot of Eastwood walking towards the corpse, saloon patrons can be seen in the background. The local Sherriff runs into the saloon.	Medium shot, pans left following Eastwood, zooms out as he checks Reno on the floor	N/A
#35 Shot of local Sherriff checking the corpse	Long shot, changes to medium as Sheriff stands up to address Eastwood	JED: You know em’?SHERRIFF: No…JED: Anybody here know em?
#36 Shot of Eastwood and the saloon patrons	Long shot, holds steady for a while, then zooms into a medium shot.	JED: Goes by the name of Reno. Come up here and take a look at him. SHERRIFF: He musta just rode in.JED: That’s what he said, how much to bury him? SHERRIFF: Elwood?ELWOOD: Well…15 dollars oughta do a fair job Marshall.   JED: All right, there seven dollars there, I’ll give you 8 more. Mark it down there. Don’t anybody leave! I want everybody to write down in this book exactly what they saw… PATRON #1: I didn’t see nothing marshall…
#37 Shot of Eastwood responding to patron.	Close up	JED: Fine, then you say that in writing.
#38 Shot of patrons talking to Eastwood	Close up	PATRON #2: Nobody’s gonna fault ya Marshall…you gave him every chance.JED: Then say it in writing.PATRON #1: Marshall, I can’t write!
#39 Shot of patrons talking to Eastwood	Close up	JED: Well the Sherriff here can write it down, and you can put your mark on it.
#40 Shot of everyone in the saloon.	Long shot of patrons, Eastwood in foreground at medium distance	JED: Sherriff, there’s a saddle out there that belongs to me, I’ll be takin’ that.
#41 Shot of Eastwood	Close up	JED: Any of his friends or relatives show up, want his horse or his belongings, you let me know, heh…
#42	Long shot of patrons, Eastwood in foreground at medium distance, holds steady as Eastwood walks away from camera towards doors, and out of the saloon.	JED: …you can wire me in Ft. Grant.SHERRIFF: You gonna pick up the Swede now?JED: No….I’m gonna have that steak now.

Well, after looking back, it’s interesting how rapidly the shots begin to change and cuts happen as tension builds before Eastwood guns down the criminal, and then the shots get longer again after the shootout and calmness returns. I’d say that this is a classic example of rhythmic montage: the cutting of the shots is based on the visual narrative, and the feeling that is being communicated to the audience, (of calmness or high intensity), is communicated through the contrast of a rapid succession of shots, or rather, long slow shots.

Ok, that’s all for now,

-Joe

iPhone Keyboard is always present-to-hand?

I was on the bus and thought about iPhone keyboard. I don’t have an iPhone, but I have several experiences using the iPhone soft-keyboard. Compared to the physical keyboard, one difference I suppose is every time when you input you have to look at the soft-keyboard, while you don’t have to do after a while using the physical one. Does that mean the iPhone keyboard is always present-to-hand, since it always causes your attention when inputting?

A close reading of WoW tear-jerker

So I decided to look at a bit of machinima made from WoW clips set to the song “Here Without You” by 3 Doors Down. It has been an interesting journey. It is incredible to think that some clips from World of Warcraft set to a cheesy late 90’s love-rock song could make me misty-eyed. I dare you to watch this video multiple times and not be moved at least a little bit.

10/GUI critique outline(updated)

My phenomenology account of critique is on this concept design called 10/GUI, reinvent desktop human-computer interaction design.

I found it interesting that there are already many critiques going on in the comment area, and someone even wrote a post to exclusively critique this concept. I think it would be better to write my own before taking a look at others’ critiques, which will be an interesting read.

This video contains both the design and design rationale. So I guess I am going to critique both, but focused on the design. I have so much to say about this proposed new interaction, but I feel I am not there yet. Just post this as a place holder and will come back later.

Here are the clusters I came up from watching the interaction and reading one of the comments regarding to the video. I am not sure if they are good clusters or not. You don’t have to look at the video to tell me that, so here they are,

with ten fingers rest on the pad, the design let me think of playing piano, and I did feel a sense of freedom of operation

but with further examination, I found this design asks a high requirement for the hand/fingers (branches listed below)
• full use of fingers, I cannot as eating as operating for some tasks (ignore the accessibility issue)
• the fingers have to be clean and dry, but my hands (and the commentator’s) are most of the time sweaty, so worried about the pointer “jump” issue
• it could not meet the gamer’s need,
• it is good at general target but bad at small/precise target
• since ten fingers are on the pad, there could possibly be unexpected use (i.e. different finger position, finger joints touch…).

Instead of free, the design restrict the hands (explain)
when use a mouse, the hands stay separate, the design throw the mouse away but also sacrifice the hands position. It bring two hands together in a restricted manner(and it doesn’t have to be that way), to feel naturally, I see “break” the pad while still keep the function would be a better choice.

These are some of the first clusters, and I have some more clusters regarding to the software solution. I know it is too much for now, but there must be some that are not good clusters,