You are currently browsing meredithelzea’s articles.

does this make sense? do i need more clarity within this paragraph?

“i want to explore why we as individuals feel pressured to give our immediate attention to our technologies. i’m going to do this by doing an in depth analysis of three different technologies: Facebook, an email application called Mailbox, and Pinterest. i will examine the types of behaviors these technologies encourage through the lens of an everyday user…”

I’m not sure what I want to offer from this analysis. does anyone have any suggestions?


I’m sure Flick has already checked this out but a video from the new atoms for peace album. thom yorke and the female dancer with him dressed in matching suits doing similar dance moves.

Tuesday, March 19th.

Watch this video:

I wanted to post this because 1. I think it’s very cool and wish I could experience it in the flesh and 2. I want to hear your opinions on how this immersive experience differs (or does it?) from what we currently consider an immersive experience in technology. Just wanna hear your thoughts.

If you’re wanting to read up on some post-apocalyptic weird alien/human sexual relationships, I have the perfect book for you! Disregarding my smirk, this novel is oddly fascinating to read. It’s the first in a 3 book series (Lilith’s Brood) by Octavia Butler. The book is called Dawn.

Talk about a book that gives critics some serious material on sexual identity…

This post is a bit late. I had been meaning to post this over the weekend but instead you get it now. Sorry!

I saw a talk at the Interaction conference that I wanted to share with you guys. It reminded me of Interaction Culture. The talk was called Realism in Design: communicating authentic experiences for the real world. The gist of the talk was how as designers, we can look outside of design for inspiration in using realism within our storytelling. He talked about how we can present pseudo artifacts as if they already exist. He gave examples like the Blair Witch Project and War of Worlds and how these were not real yet were presented in a way that the experience of watching or listening to them convinced people that these events were real. Bringing it back to interaction design, Adam Little (the presenter) said “Interaction Designers, often tasked with designing product visions and intangible services, must embrace realism in the same way to create relevant stories and natural atmospheres that effortlessly and accurately communicate the experiences and benefits of tomorrow’s systems, particularly as they play out in the lives of real people.”

Here is a link to a bunch of examples from his presentation of how storytelling through realism can be effective for interaction design.

The past 3 weeks I’ve been really confused as to how I’m going to involve my capstone in this class… until today (YAY!). Today’s activity was actually perfect for my capstone. Making the assumption that the Cisco shopping concept was made to meet the needs of the fast-paced, efficient nature of our society perfectly paralleled an article I recently read (for capstone). Here’s the article if you’d like to read it. Interesting stuff on designing for a modern culture versus a non-modern culture.

Anyway, the point is i’m going to start making a conscious effort to use the “4 ways in” when it comes to the exemplars and articles I’m reading.

I’m a bit unsure with how I should approach these readings. For example, chungking express reading I was really taken with what he was writing and pretty much just found myself lost within it (lost in a good way). Should I be stepping back and really trying to categorize his review through description, contextualization, elucidation, etc.? Or is it okay to get lost in the flow?

Okay, I really enjoyed reading Puterschein’s type reviews. Here are some reasons why…

1. The description of the font was on a separate page before showing the font. This allowed me to imagine what the font looked like based off of his descriptions. And surprisingly, I felt like each time I finished reading and looked at the font I kept thinking “yup, that’s perfect”.

2. I loved the way he personifies the fonts. He says things like elegant, sophisticated, stands out from the crowd, honest, childlike charm, etc. He says things like “look like they went on a crash diet and have lost some vitality” – immediately I understand that this implies skinny, not as energetic. The one I couldn’t help but giggle at was the “quirky (some might say ‘endearing’)” comment about sweetheart. This is exactly how one of my friends often describes guys she’s crushing on.

3. The way he describes the maker of the font.

One can imagine the young artist, lips pursed tight with concentration, brush held too tight, the letters drawn a little too slowly and too deliberately.

This gave me a sense of the personality of the maker, helping me appreciate the font in a different perspective.

4. The author’s “takeaways”. Providing ratings and explicitly stating what those ratings mean (not a range and choosing a number within that range making us assume what he means by it). I also enjoyed the detail that the rating key was consistent with the font language.

This reading made me reflect on my own articulation of something I love: music. Often times I am talking about a band I enjoy and someone might ask me what kind of music do they play? I always find myself saying “I’ll just send you a song” in order to avoid embarrassing myself in trying to describe the music. I read music reviews and they use descriptions that might make sense to some but never to me. (side note: I recently tweeted about this–> “someone needs to create a lorem ipsum from music reviews. ‘whistling zeitgeist pillow-murmured sufi-infused comfy as citizen globetrotter'” all of those words were pulled from one music review). Anyway, point is I need to start being more creative in articulating things like music, but in a manner that people can relate to. I felt Puterschein successfully did this.

This post is dealing with the Dunne introduction reading. I’m going to start with a quote:

The project proposes an approach that uses the design of conceptual electronic products as a way of provoking complex and meaningful reflection on the ubiquitous, dematerializing, and intelligent artificial environment we inhabit”

I paraphrased this for my own understanding… By using conceptual products that don’t currently exist, the audience will be prompted to reflect on their current existing environments? I’m not sure if this relationship works but this reminds me of a method we learned in Shaowen’s class. It won’t help that I don’t remember totally what the method was about but she had us do an exercise where she handed out rather organic/abstract looking objects and we were supposed to talk about the emotions of these objects. These objects did not explicitly show emotion but their form and “essence” for some reason made us relate to certain emotions, while also having us reflect on how we characterize these emotions. So by showing the audience some sort of concept that doesn’t actually exist, it’s making them relate somehow to their current products that do exist and reflect on those characteristics in a different context. Right? Am I getting it?

note: if you know the name of the method I am referring to, please inform me as I would like to look it up and clarify.

Another thing that resonated with me in this article was when Dunne talked about Ezio Manzini and the idea of the design visionary. Here’s the quote that I’m referring to:

Ezio Manzini outlined a role for the designer that offers a fresh perspecrive that builds on earlier Italian design thinking. He suggests that the days of the design visionary are over, and a weariness with utopian visions has set in. Instead , he advises the designer to use his or her skills to visualize alternative future scenarios in ways that can be presented to the public, thus enabling democratic choices between the futures people actually want. Designers could then set about achieving these futures by developing new design strategies to direct industry to work with society.

This reminded me of OpenIDEO ( For those unfamiliar, openIDEO provides design problems and anyone can submit a design. These designs are then taken through different stages where anyone can comment on the designs providing feedback and critique. In the end the winning ideas are selected based off of community evaluation AND expert feedback. I think that this is a good way for the public to provide input on what they believe is a good future design but it’s also needs an expert, educated designer to have a say in the matter.

That’s all for now 🙂