This quote from the Manovich reading particularly resonated with me, because I’ve had problems at times trying to relate our study of film/film critique with interaction design:

“And in contrast to cinema where most “users” are able to understand cinematic language but not speak it (i .e., make films), all computer users can speak the language of the interface. They are active users of the interface, employing it to perform many tasks: send e-mail, organize files, run various applications, and so on.”

Then, the text goes on to describe how film metaphors found their way into interface design: zoom, pan, tilt, etc.

I don’t know if it’s my own idiosyncracy, but it is almost making more sense for me to understand the film critique after looking at it through the interaction/interface lens, rather than the other way around. This might be because I grew up not watching a whole lot of movies, but I was often on the computer or playing video games as a kid, and this trend continued in my adult life for a long time as well. I just finally feel like the puzzle pieces are starting to click into place here.

Is anyone else experiencing this?

Advertisements