some concerns about the final paper

Hi all,

I want to mainly take semiotic approach for my final paper because I think this way of seeing is very important, and I want to get some practice on that since I got practice on phenomenology in the pre-writing assignment already.  However, I’m not feeling comfortable or confident to really do that in this busy semester end.  I feel that we’ve being talking about semiotics for only so short time(far less than the time we devoted to phenomenology) that I don’t feel I have a decent grasp on this.  Also, when I look back at the papers on semiotics now, I do not see how they can be referenced in the final paper except explaining some semiotic terms. For example, the papers on film, I don’t see how camera angle, depth of the field and montage can be applied to interaction…I have another concern which is, I don’t see what my expertise(if I have any) can be drawn upon since it depends on what interaction I pick.  So I really want to know how to pick an interaction that is both interesting to me, not too big not too small in scale, and also can utilize my expertise.

Well, I’m curious to know if some of you might feel the same way?  Or you have any suggestions on how to do this?

Concurrent Discourses

In class Jeff was talking about how self is defined by the discourse and that there is no “puppeteer” real version of self that exists inside of us.

Wow.

I know Semiotics is not supposed to be looked at like religion and its a tool and it has holes, but I’m loving it. Call bullshit if you want, but think about how that changes everything when we design. I mean look at how we use personnas or scenarios. We build these tools up to work with a given circumstance. The specific ones are typically the ones that help us the most.

My question is about concurrent discourses (think ubiquitous computing or group interaction). Jeff used the example that he acts differently around his mother than other situations. We act a certain way given the context, but what about overlapping contexts. What about when you’re married to a co-worker. Or drinking with a professor. Is this a whole new discourse, or would you consider that a combination of discourses, and if so what changes?

I may be way off here, but before I was only thinking about a single discourse. That makes sense. But when we have a lot going on (as we often do) what does that mean for semiotics?

Semiotic Chaos

When we semiotically read an artifact or interaction, there are infinite signs, texts, and discourses we could see or that we could talk about.  How do we decide which ones to focus on?  Currently when I look at an artifact or interaction, the signs, texts, and discourses just fly around my mind in chaos.  Are there methods or a process that can give you a focus or help you know where to start?

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.

Our Sequence of Analysis

Sequence of Analysis

Feedback is appreciated.

by James, Emily, and CJ (with inspiration from Ben)

Sequence Analysis and Interaction Design

I keep playing around with this in my head and I can’t come to anything but the conclusion that the unit of analysis for a sequence in interaction design is always dependent on the interaction and that dependency is because something is inherently important about each artifact and their functions differ.  Or maybe it’s based on function?  Can two artifacts that do the same thing have the same unit of measure in a sequence analysis?  Or is it based on the sequence chosen that the unit of analysis?  Would it be better to set the units of measure before even considering an artifact or would that miss the point?

Notes from class on 11/10

What is sequence analysis:

• Picking out a piece of a film that seems cohesive as a part
• Look at it in parts to find the meaning or intention
• Sequence into parts to look at the pieces and distinct parts to examine the details for meaning
• Deliberate detail analysis, painstaking
• Language of film – allows you to identify elements and talk about them on different levels

Sequence

• Self-identified
• Has a beginning and end
• Analogous to a chapter in a book
• 7 – 12 minutes of film
• song/verse

Elements of sequence analaysis

• chart/camera angle/dialogue – transcription
• depth of field
• effects
• color
• articles of a film and reviews of reviews (source materials)

Why do we do sequence analysis?

• reflect on it, see meaning in the detail
• structuralist approach for symbols
• deep awareness
• fine points
• pinpoint issues
• important features of relationship
• determining how much intention the director or interaction designer used at this level
• Gestalt verses looking granularly.  Emergence
• Merging lifeworld of the creator of the film and yourself – how well they conveyed the meaning, what worked and what didn’t
• More than the individual – relationship between things, the small and the larger picture

Activity #1 – Sequence counting in a minute in a half:  World of Warcraft – Here Without You

• Ranged from 35 – 2
• Time, movement, location, scene, expressions, narrative, editing, transitions (how people in class determined sequences)

How do we pick a sequence for interaction design

• look at it from a particular ideal user
• look at it from several small sequences based on different individual users
• we want to situate and analysis from a particular lifeworld and experience
• ideal reader of the text in terms of film, should still be that way for interaction design (addresser and addressee) rather than one real person in the world

How do we do it in interaction design

• Key strokes – old style no necessarily reflecting of the end user
• Silverback, think aloud, eyetracking –> put these together for comparative sequences

Activity #2

• Short, simple and manageable interaction for sequence analysis, work on in class during Thursday to turn in next Tuesday, group of 3

Semiotics of The Walker

I’ve been following One in 8 Million, a NYTimes.com section, for a while. Each week there will be a different story. I choose a recent one, a story about a walker in New York City, as an exercise for semiotics. (Click on the image to watch the story in the website. Sorry, flash player is needed.)

I am not sure what genre it is, but it is different from a movie. There is no movement, but continuous static photographs.

MONTAGE

Due to the pictures are chosen to match what the character says, so I think they use montage as one of the editing techniques to make the sequence of this story.

MISEN-EN-SCENE

I am sure every picture is deliberatively selected, including the composition of each photograph, how that photograph match the voice over, etc.

Production Design

They shoot on location, and the props are from the real settings in the city and costumes are all from the character her own.

Actor

Although the “actor” is not a professional actress, I think there is still a sense of performing in this story-telling, photo pose as a performance.

Sound

They use voice-over as parallel sound, and I think it is non-diegetic sound, since in this case, only us as watchers could hear it, not the people in the photographs.

Color

Black and white, so that people could only focus on the content of the photograph and the story itself.

Framing

There are some photographs use close-up camera position, and the one above is a deep depth of field but with the character blur. My connotation is that this photo reveals the inner voice of the character that she doesn’t like to walk in the city, as her voice over in this part is “I don’t feel like in the city.”

There is one look-down camera angle. My connotation is that it reveals the loneliness of the character.

ICON, INDEX & SYMBOL

The walking man sign on the road is at the same time iconic, indexical and symbolic sign. It is iconic because it is the resemblance of human being; it is indexical because it is caused to exist by the existence of human being; it is symbolic because the sign is not exactly like human, but by convention, a sign with a shape like this would make people think it is human. [I am still not confident when trying to distinguish these three concepts. These arguments are copied from Barnard's book, page 148-149. Please help me.]

At when there is 1:13 left, the photo of the character’s sketchbook is seen as an index to her thinking, for her voice over is “if I don’t walk, I can’t think”.

I think the graffiti picture when there is 1:28 left is an icon. It is like a portrait for a lady.

The photograph when there is 1:20 left with a picture on the ground with two women in cheongsam on it, (I think they are from old Shanghai time), it is iconic, but I am not sure whether it is symbolic. Can you find any conventions?

QUESTION

When there is 00:38 left, I don’t understand why when she said”I noticed buildings”, but the photograph shown is having a shallow depth of field and making the building out of focus, instead focusing on an old man. Maybe they don’t have a better photograph? Probably not so.

CONFESSION

This exercise really helps me to think deeper of the terms, instead of just memorizing.

This is by no means a complete analysis. I would like to hear your voice.

Notes from class on 11/4/09

We watched several movie clips and discussed the ideas from the readings; also Chung-Ching made some awesome diagrams to help us with understanding and discussion of the films.

Notes from class today

Here are notes from class today;

We looked at terms from the paper. We then applied the terms to a movie clip we watched.

Then we watched a youtube clip about a touch interaction, and applied the terms from the Lacey paper.

Then we had a discussion about novel interactions and symbolism, and a wee bit ‘o speculation about how to think about new systems.

P.S. If someone else has notes, please feel free to add them. You can either add them as a comment or create an entirely new post; however, it might be nice to have all of the notes in this section.

Chung-Ching and Jen ARE AWESOME! Thanks for the discussion.