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?

Semiotics without Phenomenology?

So I asked this in class, but I wanted to open it up on the forums.

“Can we do semiotics, can we talk about it, without using phenomenology to explain our understanding of the text?”

Jeff’s comment was that’s how they thought about it in the 60’s but they realized there was a missing piece is assuming the signifier connected directly to the signified in an obvious way. But we now know that way is not so obvious. Yet, I believe there were some people who maybe disagree and that there is a bit of separation. If that’s true, please let me know because I’m having an impossible time of separating the two ideas in my head. I feel like at this point semiotics is just a way of looking at phenomenology, you know: things as symbols or representation that connect meaning and message from a supplier to a receiver. Like how UPS delivers my birthday ( november 12th ) cookies from my mom to my house.

..jaMEs

Steps 20091027

Mind Barf – just sharing

My selected interaction follows:

Still working on refining my argument–here’s the mind barf:

My Claims:

- This interaction is successful at being entertaining/stimulating to the intended audience
- The designers were able to understand the lifeworlds of the fans/audience and hold true to the ‘rules’ of the world of the series
- The dialogue spoken in the actor’s voices (Bruce Campbell, Ted Raimi), the humorous interaction of the player abusing the sidekick, and the fact that the game holds true to the mise-en-scene of the film series all together holistically create a pre-ontological experience for the player that allows them to act and do things with the controls ready-at-hand, which therefore allows them to become fully engaged in this particular game world.

Argument?: One of the more prominent interactions designed into the video game “Evil Dead: Regeneration” where the player, who assumes the lead role of Ash (Bruce Campbell) from the Evil Dead series, is encouraged and able to “use and abuse” his companion sidekick Sam, is an interaction designed for the life-worlds of a specific audience, and through a phenomenological understanding of their audience’s life worlds, and through an understanding of the intersubjectivity for what is funny and entertaining to this specific audience, the designers were able to successfully create a fun and enjoyable experience for fans of the series and players of the game.

Ok, thanks for replies,

-Joe

Activity theory and context

“Activity theory cautions us that any tool has the potential to transform the activity in which it is used and, reciprocally, that tools have the potential to be transformed as they are used.”  pg. 13

This made me start thinking in circles about how the context of something is constantly changing.  It makes it very difficult to ever truly understand a situation on top of the different lifeworld problem within design of never being able to understand something the exact same way as someone else understands it.  If the context is always changing, then it’s impossible to design for a context.  There is always  more to learn and more to understand.  No wonder design is so difficult and the strategy of working with the ultimate particular was developed.  At least at that level there is a smaller net of things to understand because the focus is narrow.

Then there’s the thought here of user interpretation.  If the context of design understanding is always changing based on an ever changing context, interpretation of the both the user and the designer is influenced by context, context is influenced by interpretation, and the addition of a new design causes new interpretations and new context… no wonder design = HARD; design = WICKED.

understanding things outside our lifeworlds

after class on Tuesday Ben and I were talking about an idea: what if a child was raised in a gravity-less world. they were never told about gravity. they never read about gravity. gravity does not exist in their life world. later in the boy’s life he is brought to Earth (with gravity enabled). what happens to the boy? Ben’s comment was “I think he will float away”.

i doubt he will float away, but how do we explain what will happen to him. or will he not even realize the effects. i remember reading somewhere that the native americans didn’t even see the ships coming because it was such a foreign object they weren’t able to process the ships were there until they were on the shore. could be a lie.

i guess my point is that we can all agree that the tiny specks on light in the sky are actually objects hurling through space at crazy speeds and are actually (for the most part) quite enormous in size. we’ve never seen that. and things like that do not exist in our life world.

does this phenomenon happen in design? i tried to think of an example of something like that that was created, but i feel like as designers we are restricted. can we actually design something that doesn’t exist in our life worlds? or are all designs somehow a continuation of something we already know and understand (like the radio -> cd player -> ipod)?

btw, i don’t know if you know this or not, but i love space…

..jaMEs

Reading 10/15: Activity Theory and Context Based Design

Hi all:

I found a free PDF version of this reading over internet. It is good for people enjoy computer screen PDF reading.

The Double Life of Veronique

I immensely enjoyed and appreciated ‘The Double Life of Veronique’ on so many levels but my immediate reaction after the film finished was ‘huh?’ and that I wanted to watch it again. I understood (well thought I understood) the main story line and the nuanced dramatic devices such as the clear ball and the symbolic emphasis on sex and death used throughout the film. However, there were still so many questions I had that were unanswered, for instance, what was the deal with Veronique agreeing to lie in court for her friend and was the piece of string related to her death some how?

Reading Kickasola answered many of my queries (turns out the part about Veronique lying for her friend in court was part of a subtext that had to be cut which is why it didn’t really fit in overall). Yet at the same time Kickasola raised more questions and brought out the cynic in me as I found many of his comments suspect and unconvincing. I tend to find myself feeling slightly sceptical when academic writers start using jargon that confounds the message rather than clarifies it. Was he just reading too much into the film or were the complex layers and meanings completely intended and decided upon by the director? For instance the theme of vision and new beginning is inferred purely from Veronique removing Alexandre’s glasses from his hand in the hotel room scene at the end. Also, the comment about the anonymous phone call being interpreted by postmoderns as “a recognizance of the interstitial image and a critique of the medium” (p.252) is not discussed or elucidated at all.

Maybe I am missing the point and I should just appreciate and accept what the author interprets in the film but it keeps making me think of when I had to read ‘Wuthering Heights’ by Emily Bronte for my English literature class at school. There are so many interpretations flying around of the book, one of which is a Freudian psychoanalytic reading which was predictably about sex and repressed desires. It just didn’t seem to make sense that people were reading Freud into Bronte’s book when he wasn’t even born when it was published so the author obviously had no intention of symbolizing the Oedipus complex in Heathcliff and Catherine’s relationship.

I guess all this just comes back to the issues we have been raising in class, how much as a critic we are able to bring to the table and interpret a ‘text’ and how much we look to the author and their intention or even if that matters. Either way, I really loved the film and have been thinking about it ever since as it is a poignant and thought-provoking work of art. The director Kieslowski can include me with the fifteen-year-old girl he met in Paris (p.244) in being profoundly affected by the movie.

sketchnotes^2 … comicsnotes

So, I mentioned the other day that I can’t read, which is why McCloud’s books were so great for me.  I guess I’m just a really visual learner.   I’m also, as many of you know, a comic artist.  So, I really don’t know why I didn’t think of this sooner:

Comics Notes:

First page… doodling and random cartoons

Iteration and panel borders…

The notes from Erik’s class today… Just another example.

Anyways… thought someone might think it’s relevant.