As I was reading the Corrigan reading, I found myself trying to make the connections in critiquing current technology and interactions.  So here’s my go at making the connections on a few of Corrigan’s approaches.  Whether they are correct or not, I’m not too sure.  But its a try.

Film History – Corrigan stated that this approach was typically used in investigating the historical context of a film.   He said that “some historical analysis informs most writing about the film.”  I guess with interaction design, the historical analysis would inform us about the evolution of interactions and devices.  In regards to interaction, I took this historical analysis not of the context of the time, but the historical context of the artifact.  For example, if we take a look at how music players have changed throughout history.  They have evolved from radios, large boxes full of wires used to play recorded music, to more portable forms.  From radios, we moved to things like tape players, Discmans, mp3 players, to the iPod, the iPod Nano, and eventually the iPod Shuffle.  Looking at the history of music players, we can see a historical trend of devices getting more compact.  And now that I’m writing and thinking about it, this is a historical trend that reflects us as a population.  Because music players are not the only devices in history that have evolved to become smaller and more portable; we notice this trend in phones, and even video playing devices.

National Cinemas – I had a harder time with this theme in regards to technology and interactions.  To Corrigan, the national cinema approach dealt with the culture and national character of a film.  I suppose in our case, this means that technology is portrayed differently within different cultures.  This is a long shot in the dark, but could this play into how western cultures typically read left to right and up to down, and how most of web interfaces place their menus on the left side of the page, or at the top of the screen?  I feel like menu placement is a standard across the web, but how does this affect cultures that read in the opposite way?  Is it possible that other cultures may try formatting their technology differently because of this?

OR does the national cinema approach deal with specific cultures and how they interact with technology differently (with less of a focus on the actual technology, and more focus on the cultures using it)?   Again, I’m not too sure…

Genres – The genre analysis approach focused on finding patterns of form and content in a film.  With genres, we identify themes, structures, and techniques that are similar within a set of films- or in our case, technologies.  I relate this to having certain design patterns for different companies.  Take Apple for example.  Apple products have certain patterns when it comes to gestures.  I consider them one of the first companies to play with gestures successfully.  On macs, Apple made use of the no button track pad.  They played with gestures and how a user can use the two finger swipe to scroll up and down, four finger swipe to display all applications, pinch to zoom in and out, etc.  As a company, Apple has carried on these types of gestures to other technologies.  They moved to the iPod touch, eventually to the iPhone, and now the iPad, which has similar use of gestures.  This is just one example, since Apple has made various design patterns recognizable to the brand.  When someone says “That’s an Apple product”, the phrase has a certain connotation of design patterns that follows it.

Auteurs – This type of analysis deals with associations of films to certain dominant figures.  I saw this as associating certain technologies to specific companies, or those at the head of the company.  I’ll use Apple products as an example again; they have a direct association with Steve Jobs.  Other examples include associating Macintosh products to Bill gates, or social media products to Mark Zuckerberg.

Kinds of Formalism – This type of criticism dealt with style and how features are structured within different films.  In film, Corrigan stated that critics focused on different patterns in narrative, camera techniques, etc.  I could be wrong, but I related this to different UI elements.  If you compare Android phones to the iPhone, both have their own unique design patterns. Android phones typically have a sort of static menu structured into the phone at the bottom of the screen.  Because of this, apps designed for an Android device don’t typically need a “back” button.  The iPhone however does not have a static back button, so typically in iPhone apps you’ll see the back button as a back arrow with text on the top left of the phone.

Ideology – The beliefs we have about the world… honestly, I had no clue how to relate this aspect.  Any thoughts?