Pinterest and Gender

As an active user of Pinterest, I thought it is nothing more than a tool to organize images, which should be gender neutral. However, demographic data shows in 2012, 83% of the US users were women. I was surprised at first but suddenly thought of all those wedding dresses, jewelries I saw during my daily update. And here’s my closer look.

I’m not sure whether female are more of visual creatures than guys, but it’s so easy to hear “oh this is pretty”, “it’s really cute” from a female. They are also enthusiastic shoppers and home decorators: sometimes satisfied by just looking around without buying anything. While guys more often do their shopping with a clear goal and looking more into functionality. It’s also women who tend to care more about whether they look good in photos and check their current “image” from mirrors, just like Cleo. Some study shows as early as four months old, baby girls can distinguish facial features and are able to distinguish between photos of people they know versus strangers. Baby boys are not able to do that. Even a brief look into the default categories Pinterest provides for people’s collection boards, seem to give us some hints: there are 32 categories in total, in a quick tag I did, there are 11 categories which are more “female” such as DIY & crafts, gardening, hair & beauty, while 7 are more “male”, such as cars & motorcycles, geek, science & nature. Female also “wins” on the Popular page of Pinterest, where you may see babies, panda sushis, women’s apparel and cute pancakes.

The popular page of Pinterest, accessed on April 16. Pinterest is a Virtual Pinboard, where people create “boards” (collections) and put “pins” (images) on it.

In the feminism chapter from the shoe book, Barnard mentioned “Feminism points out that there are gender differences and argues that the gendered position of the understanding subject has a part to play in, and makes a difference to, the understanding of understanding.” To some extent, the user of Pinterest is also creating their understanding of certain words (usually the title of their collection board), e.g. on User A’s board “Spring”, she not only put what people would normally put: flowers, but also pictures of Easter and St. Patrick’s Day, which shows she might be a religious person. The Spring collection might have influence in the following way (1) to other viewers, who has never thought from a holiday or religious perspective about spring, they may have more insights about the season now (2) shape the author’s own understanding of spring by consistent interaction with the board. It’s like the part and whole relationship we covered in previous class: the author’s “horizon” affects what she puts on the board named Spring, and what she put on the board (sometimes may be a random or suddenly inspired choice) will also cast influence on her understandings.

A collection named “Spring” (the St.Patrick Day picture is not shown in this screenshot)

When talking about the weakness of feminist is a gender-based approach to understanding visual culture is reductive. I randomly looked into 5 male and 5 female’s collections. There seems to be no big difference in quantity. But very “gender-biased” is the content, even under the same category they might have totally different pictures. For example, under “Travelling”, female users usually have pictures of flowers, landscape, but rarely boats; under “Architectures”, rarely do they post high-tech buildings as some guys do. It does appear to me gender-based understanding is reductive, because the filter of a woman’s eyes might keep the softer, more emotional staff, while the guy’s might retain the harder, more rational things. However, I don’t think it’s a weakness. Actually different individuals, groups, organizations, classes, should have distinct understanding towards the same thing. Feminist might look at the subject from a cultural perspective while scientist are studying the scientific formation or structure. It is such and such reductive understanding that come together to make it more holistic.

A male user’s (up) and a female user’s (down) collections with the same title “Home Home Home”

Shaowen’s paper pointed out “The interaction design process takes place independent of gender considerations, and even today the central concept of the whole field—the user—remains genderless.” I am curious whether the designers of Pinterest have thought about gender but I will not be surprised that the content of the default categories might have been changed according to what the users are putting up on their boards. If so, then it is a participatory process where the first release of the product can still be counted as part of the design phase. This is similar to the user-centered lane building process where people walk across a big lawn and stepped out a path, then the workers build the lanes accordingly. In that case, if more passers-by are female, the final lane should is more likely to be a female route (if there’s difference btw male and female about path picking).

A lawn in Stanford. The walking paths were built according to the people’s walking route on the original lawn (with out any path).

In Shaowen’s paper she also mentioned some qualities of feminist interaction:

Pluralism, which refers to “design artifacts that resist any single, totalizing, or universal point of view”, is well practiced in Pinterest. Though the functions are the same and quite limited, people turn to be creative and everyone’s boards are different.

Advocacy, which encourages designers to “question their own position to assert what an ’improved society’ is and how to achieve it”. I’m not sure if the designers have thought about the “good society” but though what people put up for topics like home, wedding, life, dream, it’s not hard to have a glimpse of at least a small group of people’s image of “good society”.

Self-disclosure, which refers to “the extent to which the software renders visible the ways in which it effects us as subjects”, is carried out by the function that the user can follow the whole collection of a person or a specific board.

I feel just by looking at what each individual has put up there can help me easily create a mood board about gender differences. Those collections cast light on things that women and men like respectively and would probably each be willing to spend effort on. It might face some harsh critique but I think it will be very interesting if we can filter the search result for a certain topic by gender. So far, it’s really hard to pick out males from random users because there are too few…

Are memes art?

Check this out: Are Memes Art? (via The Verge; original source is PBS Idea Channel on YouTube).

When you think about it from the perspective of the paper we read on relational aesthetics, it kind of makes sense.  As a reminder, here’s the definition of relational art via Nicolas Bourriard’s Relational Aesthetics:

The possibility of a relational art (an art that takes as its theoretical horizon the sphere of human interactions and its social context, rather than the assertion of an autonomous and private symbolic space) is testimony to the radical upheaval in aesthetic, cultural and political objects brought about by modern art.

However, I think there are some differences in internet memes as art versus what Bourriaud calls relational art:

• Bourriaud says modern art is a result of the urbanization of the artistic experience. Perhaps internet meme art is something along the lines of the globalization or virtualization of the artistic experience?
• Bourriard refers to an exhibition as a privileged place where instant communities can be established. Would the internet as a whole be considered the “exhibition”, or would it fall under another category?
• Bourriard says artists should take responsibility for the symbolic models they make. Who, if anyone, takes responsibility for internet memes?
• (anything else you can think of…?)

P.S. Kant and Collingwood make guest appearances in the video!

Using science-fictionality in ID

Csicsery-Ronay talks about the concept of science-fictionality:

“This widespread normalization of what is essentially a style of estrangement and dislocation has stimulated the development of science-fictional habits of mind, so that we no longer treat sf as purely a genre engine producing formulaic events, rather as a kind of awareness we might call science-fictionality, a mode of response that frames and tests experiences as if they were aspects of a work of science fiction.”

I tried to think of a few places in interaction design where the user is called upon to use science-fictionality in their experience with a design. Many video games that require problem solving skills do this, by setting up a set of rules in a reality that doesn’t necessarily mirror ours precisely, and asking us to solve problems by following the alternate reality’s rules. I know there must be other examples, maybe in our day to day life.

Age of the Avatar

<I posted this on my tumblr account, and decided to post it here for a couple of reasons (in addition to just being lazy.) For one, I’m probably ripping this idea off from Jeff and Shaowen and not even realizing it. Other reason, this is a sort of critique of the social context in which we use and view live-action role playing.>

I spent some time today with a student in one of my labs. We talked about an upcoming project in which the student will need to compare a digital and analogue version of some thing in society. He wanted to focus on the RPG “Second Life” for his digital component, but did not know what would appropriately compare to it in analogue.

I introduced him to Live-Action Role Playing, or LARPing, as a comparable social exercise. Found a couple of videos online, such as this gem:

It’s a quick and dirty way to spell out the differences between just living life in analogue and living a second life in analogue, so I used it with the student so he could understand what I was talking about. However, even though we laughed (pretty hard) at this example, it’s important to remember that we’re possibly less removed from this type of behavior than we’ve ever been in the past (facebook, twitter, etc.) The feeling I have is that we have all moved into a era where we deliberately construct an external representation of ourselves which highlights what we choose to highlight, and subdues that which we wish to suppress.

One could say that this is just the same as it’s always been, and I’d be inclined to agree. However, this tendency to exhibit a certain perspective of ourselves has evolved into a representation which is completely physically separate from physical bodies. I believe this separation is significant.

This separate form of ourselves is a living thing. It lives and breathes. It interacts with other beings like it. It speaks its own language (ever try saying LMAO to someone in person?) If this separate form stops functioning, the community moves on without it. It essentially dies, like my myspace profile. There are times when some of us have “friended” or “followed” someone we’ve never met (in “real” life,) and they’ve done it back, in turn. At this point, this is one external representation of ourselves accepting another, and choosing to interact with it. How different is this from “Second Life?”

I personally believe that we are in a stage of era in which external representations of ourselves are not only accepted, but considered a social norm. I believe that while these external representations (avatars) only slightly deviate from what we consider our “real” selves now, they will deviate more as we continue into this era. We will be just as attached to these future representations of ourselves as we are to our current ones.

So as I was saying before: when we laugh at LARPers throwing lightning bolts at ogres, we’re essentially laughing at our own behavior. Which is awesome, as long as we know that’s what we’re doing.

Analysis of World of Warcraft FigurePrints

This is a beast of a post (although not as long as some others).  I am attempting to make some sense of my argument for my paper, so I am being thorough in the hope that I can get some good feedback.  Thanks in advance if you read all this.   Enjoy the journey:

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?

The Caster Semenya Saga

Disclaimer: There may be certain parts of this post that may not be directly related to this class. But since this was raised in class today, I am risking it here.

Gender and Sex:
First things first. It maddens me when “respected” newspapers publish stuff like “gender tests to determine sex”. I cannot find enough expletives. As Yujia pointed out in class, gender is a social construct. How one identifies hirself (gender neutral pronoun). Gender is about identity. Sex on the other hand is about the actual biological and physical manifestation. And we all agreed that gender and sex of a person need not match.

The Sex Game:
CJ raised a point today in class. What if a transgendered person who identifies hirself as a female wants to participate in women’s sports? Then the transgendered person has an unfair advantage over the other biologically female contestants. So I deduce that the point made here is “No matter how you identify yourself, if you don’t belong to this biological category of sex, then stay away from here.”

From this point of the article onwards, I am not addressing anyone in particular from our class.

Transaction without Interaction

I realize this is pretty off topic from where everyone has been, and in part that’s why I decided (after a day or more debating with myself) to post it anyway.

I was talking to my other half the other day about droppin gmy car off to the mechanics, and we started discussing how we could possibly ever pick it up since really it should be picked up when the mechanic is open so I can pay them fo rit. But this is a mechanic I have used for a long time, and assured him I coud leave a check in their drop off box. He said to this, “Transaction without interaction, I like it.”

I just sort of sat there and blinked for a while. This idea is very at odds with our school as a whole’s idea. There are so many designs I can come up with off the top of my head that either our class has seen or designed ourselves tht were meant to facilitate and initiate person to person interaction (whether there was a technology of some sort between the two or not). But this idea that it might be far more preferable to people that they not have to deal with other people at all rocked me back.

Being in this class, I have thought of it as a sort post-it note to go on my mental design wall (as per the example of Chad’s we’ve been using). Something I need to keep in mind both when critiquing and designing. Of course not all people are going to be interested in intereacting with others a lot of the time, and (god forbid!) this might actually be the more common attitude.

Just figured I’d pop this up here since I’ve seemed very un-participatory because I feel I have nothing to say that could really add any value to any of the previous posts.

Just Some Thoughts…

After class last Thursday, I think one of the questions I had at the beginning of the semester was answered. I was wondering why, if we have fields dedicated to comparative literature, architecture, fashion design and film/tv studies, is it so difficult to identify this community when it comes to interaction design? I guess I should clarify: we can identify the designers but not those who offer their critiques of it. I was sort of baffled to hear that this didn’t exist within an academic context.

Thursday our discussion of the science wars (cultural studies being separate from “science”) made it a little more clear for me. This divide seems to run so deep. And unfortunately, it seems that our object of criticism sits more in the center of these two fields than any other form of media. I guess my pessimistic side wonders if there’s hope that each side will ever appreciate, or at least respect the work of the other.

I’m giving these things quite a bit of thought lately, because I’m trying to decide what my MA thesis will be about and how I should go about doing the (*&#$& thing. I’m having a hard time resolving my methodological uncertainties for fear that my work will only be applicable to one community or the other. I really hate to limit my future opportunities by choosing to do a qualitative study as opposed to a quantitative one and vice versa. Any one who wants to offer advice, my ears are open!!!

Also, I found an interesting researcher (danah boyd) who is looking at social networking sites (among many other things). Perhaps, people are already familiar with her work? I’m not sure her work qualifies as criticism, but I thought it was interesting and wanted to pass it along:

http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/

How MP3 player changed in Korea…. (And comparison between Americans and Koreans)

It was Eli’s class, I300 about two years ago. In the class we talked about the new iPod, the iPod Nano. Students in class said that they did not like Nano because it’s too small and they are worried about breaking it accidently. They liked the bigger ones.

Hm…. I could not understand because I had a Korean mp3 player which was 1/3 of iPhone in size. Well.. I liked it because it’s small and had all the features that I wanted. (To be honest… Korean people liked the model because it was small and looked cool to carry such a small thing) (Example, http://www.cowonamerica.com/products/iaudio/t2/)

Well… I must say.. it was the culture. And now I really like iPhone, while in Korea, the iPhone is not sold at all and Korean people do not care as much as here I do. (As Jeff talked about this in class)

 

As many of you know, Asians like the small and cute things. (Especially… hm…. Koreans and Japanese) As MP3 player became famous in Korea, people wanted to have smaller and more features. In the result, companies made very small ones like the one above.

However, in Korea, Digital Multimedia Broadcasting(DMB) became popular and people wanted to watch TV programs on their MP3 players or Cell phones. So.. companies had to make them bigger because people wanted to bigger screen to watch. So.. Basically.. Bigger to Smaller and back to Bigger.

Now in the subways or buses, Korean people are watching TVs on their big MP3 players(DMB players) or on their cell phones that work for DMB. As the new technology is developed (I mean DMB here), people gave up on the culture which is “Small and fancy electronic devices, such as MP3 players”. Now as the new technology became popular, the culture had to change to meet the need of the people.

 

One more… People used to read books or sleep in the subways or buses.. Now people want to watch TV or sleep in the subways or buses (they even watch TVs while driving -> Becoming a big problem in Korea)