Sequence of Analysis

Feedback is appreciated.

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

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?

So I would like to focus on different drum peripherals for my final paper – using semiotics – and am showing what I have so far. Here are the peripherals I am looking at:

Guitar Hero Drum Set	Rock Band Drum Set

One of the things that I just noticed when I was looking at these peripherals remediates other real-world drumming equipment:

Drum Set (kinda like Guitar Hero)

Quad Toms (kinda like Rock Band)

So I don’t know where this will lead me, but I thought I would share and see if you have any other insights as well.

(^^)V

So I took a look at one of the readings for this week, and it talked about how people use language in different contexts to connotate meanings within a community. I saw this as an opportunity to share some of the knowledge I know about the metal community by showing this music video (Arch Enemy – Revolution Begins). Please enjoy! (It’s a short post)

Basically this can only be described by the following phrase: “that’s metal”. Now, I am not just saying the obvious, but I am using the awesomeness described by Zach and Ron (of epic Metalscape fame), as something that is so imbued with the spirit and experience that you feel it through your body. This is exhibited in the following ways:

(from the video)

1. flames
2. walking (stance)
3. black and sepia colors
4. usage of few video filters
5. defiance and epicness
6. pretty built (physically – like Vin Diesel) people
7. clouds

(from the music)

1. epic fast (2 handed) solo
2. very full of power (volume)
3. high energy (speed)
4. the black and red for anarchy (color)

So in the readings for Thursday (Bolter & Gromala, 369-82, “Transparency and Reflectivity: Digital Art and the Aesthetics of Interface Design”), I just wanted to ask if anyone noticed that (or agrees with):

Present to Hand & Transparency are the same thing.

Ready to Hand & Reflectivity are the same thing.

Transparency Def:
“… they usually assume that the interface should serve as a transparent window, presenting the user with an information workspace without interference or distortion. They expect the user to focus on the task not the interface itself.”

Reflectivity Def: “There are times when the user wants to be immersed in the data and to forget the interface, and other times when the user needs to step back and look at the interface rather than through it.”

Present-to-hand
You awareness is on the tool, not the task.

Ready-to-hand

You are using the tool, but your awareness is on the task.

————————————–

Do you agree? Yea? Nae?

Are the differences that I am not seeing/understanding? (If so, please make them “present-to-hand” for me!)

Thanks!

Here’s my understanding of these terms..

A sequence is any meaningful unit in a film.  It is mostly a collection of scenes and/or shots but depends more on how it adheres to each other in terms of meaning.

A scene is any continuous event captured by the camera and happens in the same setting/ location/place. It might also be a montage as long as it is  perceptually continuous and occurring in the same place.

A shot is more related to the editing and is defined by where the film is cut.  In other words it’s a frame or sequence of frames in between each edit.

I think that a scene by itself can be a sequence, especially in terms of the sequential occurring of shots and if it qualifies in terms of being a single unit.  Yet, I also find that there are two major distinctions
a) a scene always appear in a single setting/place whereas a  sequence can have more than one setting.
b) a sequence will always have the quality of wholeness whereas  a scene need not necessarily have this wholeness as much as it can contribute to one.

Is my interpretation correct? I still feel fuzzy about this.  Please share your thoughts.

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.

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

Thanks Yujia for finding the link in her last post. Today, when I was reminded of task analysis(TA) by sequence analysis(SA), I knew there are some similarities, but also some difference, but I could not articulate at that time. This paragraph from Jeff’s post helps me think,

“But whereas task analysis if often used as a means to measure efficiency to ascertain usability, sequence analysis in film is used to gain insight into the objective basis of a subjective phenomenon: the experience of a film.”

Here is a definition of task analysis from Dan Saffer’s book, Designing for Interaction,

“A task analysis is a raw list of activities that the final design will have to support.”

“[it] is especially useful later in the design process as a check to see whether the design supports all the tasks required. … the designer can make sure the design meets all the requirements.”

From Jeff’s analysis about the SA, I got the sense that it is to make the invisible visible, and the unconscious conscious by seeing the break down of a sequence from the film, and find out and analyze what exactly shape the experience. While TA is about logic, exploring all possibilities of an interaction. The purposes are different.

However if going further, by laying the two out, I can see the possible connection here. If TA could also be used to analyze the sequence of interaction, instead of just examining whether something is missing, but also exposing the elements that consist of the design, we could also make the invisible visible, in terms of finding out how they affect the user experience. Any thoughts?

Ha, it seems that I should explore Jeff’s old posts as supplementary class readings.

http://interactionculture.wordpress.com/2007/12/23/sequence-analysis-film-and-task-analysis-interaction-design/

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