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)

“Sociability” and Interaction Design

Nowadays, everybody seems talking about the importance of “sociability” in design. I have no doubt with the importance of “sociability.” However, I feel like people talk only about positive aspects of “sociability.” In fact, when I read the following paragraph from today’s reading. I felt so shameful that I thought that “sociability” might be an option in design.

“To designing for usability, utility, satisfaction, and communicative qualities, we should add a fifth imperative: designing for sociability. When IT systems fail to support the social aspect of work and leisure, when they dehumanize and de-civilize our relationship with each other, they impoverish the rich social web in which we live and operate, essential for both well-being and efficiency.”

Is it true that “sociability” should be a fifth imperative? Is “sociability” always a good thing? What is the relationship between “privacy” and “sociability”? Is “privacy” a subset of “sociability” in a bigger picture? or Are “privacy” and “sociability” against with each other?

Actually, the above doubtful questions came from my interest in the design of ebooks. I have been interested in “the design of (mobile) ebook (devices)” and “reading activities” – if I am lucky enough, I want to pursue this research interest at least until I finish my dissertation.

Are “ebooks” and “reading activities” related to “sociability”? Should “sociability” be a fifth imperative in the design of ebooks? People might say “yes! why not?” (especially, from a social constructivism perspective, I guess). However, from my own experience, social interaction with friends was sometimes less helpful than my own interaction with texts (sudden comprehension after reading over and over). Do I still need to concern about “sociability” in the design of ebooks? Shouldn’t “sociability” be an option? Doesn’t it depend on readers’ learning styles, for example?

My final question! So, what criteria (or factors) do I need to take into account in judging if “sociability” should be a fifth imperative (if “sociability” should be an option)?