There's not a lot of depth to this post from ActionMill! -- that is, they don't explain much but they don't have to. I think the point speaks for itself.
Why? because it's about the process, not the destination, or the destination can only effectively be a function of the process if it's not decided before hand.
It's like in Digital Storytelling: why are you telling this story? what does it mean that you're chosing it? and chosing to tell it now? what will you learn when you've finished constructing the elements.
Last Thursday was an amazing day -- I had a conversation with @sizemore, a conversation I'm repeating with as many people about Seesmic1.0 (Phreadz and 12seconds)*, as was the original video version. All weekend one thing he said stands out for me more than anyting else: Seesmic particularly started to suck once they got rid of Giselle who's function was to produce Seesmix or a highlight show of the weeks uploads.
For @sizemore, it's the optimal size and sort of community available in an online space.
I'm not certain there's much to the interface -- but do you include the tummler as part of the interface? or should we include the tummler as part of the interface?
*were you a Seesmic1.0, Phreadz, or 12seconds power-user? get in touch! I'd like a few minutes of your time.
I visited the Wellcome Gallery today to see the Miracles and Charms exhibit ( on til 26 Feb ). The traditional saints pictures with short messages in thanks are left in shrines and churches for other people to see and according to one video installation interview and think 'Ah, ok.' sounds familiar, doesn't it? Nothing is entirely new. And we have never been modern.
{warning, this post is a rambling string of thoughts, stitched haphazardly together so I can sleep tonight}
This weekend I'm taking part in a hack weekend : SocialTV for education. Obviously, this is directly related to the practical part of my PhD. I've been reflecting on how much I want to share about what I'm working on, to protect my own ideas (the big bad corporation will be there) but also let enough slip to attract a developer.
~*<< tangentially >>*~ I had trouble with my O2 billing this AM, having been threatened with suspension of service because my card expired last month. I was thinking about what I want my online storytelling platform to do, and then looking at my bill and thinking about the relationship business model we finished in CCE MA class in entrepreneurial modelling I'm sitting this year, my eyes fell on the invented term 'bolt-on'. Sian Prime who (effectively) heards sheep once a week in class told us this week, 'if a term doesn't exist for what you're trying to do, make it up.'
I'm almost finished with Richard Sennett's book 'The Craftsman' --#mustread, incidentally-- in which tales of design are told with language ambiguous enough to be infused with individuated meaning.
We live in a highly individuated time, where individuation, flexibility, and crafted ambiguity is the meme of design-- bolt-on bits to your identity to your skillset to your self as a 'professional'
This is interesting for me as I'm considering features and features to test in my own interface design. Do I do what I need or build in a selection of capabilities I might not need but that others could use?
This is a very interesting meditation on the future of interaction design (as in the short video below) for digital objects passed on to me by Bill Thompson. Will analogue objects always have a place simply because we can't replicate the 'feel' of the genuine article?
The author says that simply gestures and swipes "Pictures Under Glass" technology isn't innovative -- just a step further of what we currently have.
He writes that with this interface approach we lose evolutions gifts: the ability to manipulate objects with our hands, especially how our hands respond to textures of objects is lost on interaction design creators. He calls this technology "status quo", replicating rather than innovating.
I have to say, I agree.
However, to play devils advocate,
why is he assuming that we should/want replicate the feeling of, for example, a weighty book in our hands? Some books are very large and awkward to hold for a long time standingup on public transport, for example. I have no idea if it's possible to simulate weight, to have one side of a 'book' reader weigh more than another so you 'know' where you are with relation to beginning, middle, end.
Further, should we similate texture and weight? Or is that the point of convergence? We cannot improve upon nature's design: the texture and weight of objects, working with our hands to manipulate and craft objects, shouldn't that remain the purview of the analogue?
If you want to read a book socially, get a digital one. Thompson's complaint about digital books is that it's harder to flip back and forth, it's 'clunky' the way the Kindle shows you where you are in the text, the slider thing. It's not easy to go back to where you were or look for indexes and annotations.
But if you want to read a book, for the joy of interruption free immersion in a story and mental isolation from everything else, get a paper one.
***
One final comment about this post: I like the way the author used images interspersed with text, and the multiple view layouts of the images.
“Now I existed solely thanks to the quantum paradox, my brain a collection of qubits in quantum superposition, encoding truths and memories, imagination and irrationality in opposing, contradictory states that existed and didn't exist, all at the same time.” ― Robin Wasserman, Crashed
There are two stylistic elements I'd like to takeaway from this:
1. keeping the viewer interested whilst there are taling head shots. Yanone flips between moving stills and the person, no transitions. I noticed that this flicking mimics eye movement, looking at different spaces.
2. when he introduces a character he unapologetically takes up the whole screen with the words whilst 'dimming' the picture to black and white.
I briefly dipped into an event in Berlin's 48 Studen Neukölln this weekend: a 24 hour 'live write' that put six writers in a room with typewriters for 24 hours, and they wrote a story. As an open event, people could come and go, contribute words (so the broshure said, I didn't see how this went).
I made a little 'picture' of the event from the 45 minutes I spent reading the only story in english.
That story was definitely non-linear-- snippets of time of different characters lives. There wasn't much description in the sense of background, I had no preparative summary to read (like you would on a book dust jacket) but what struck me about my own mental process whilst reading these snippets was the ease with which my mind filled in where there was no information.
And then I thought about literacy skills: I can very easily go into a non-linear story and have no problem that the events aren't sequential, the characters imperceptibly connected --> digital literacy skills, audience literacy skills. We think non-linearly, Frank Rose is the latest author to point this out, but I remember seeing certain films with my mother and she not liking them because they were non-linear, she wasn't prepared before hand. I am aware that my mind identifies non-linearity immediately.
You know when you're just onto an idea but it's not fully formed and you need help from people who are at the same stage or have done projects similar to yours?
A company of narrative environment creatives has come to Berlin for a short stay @opendesigncity@betahaus . They held an open talk/shop to for help with creating a narrative toolkit for creating place from space and interactivity with that place.
Below are pics from the tool shop: both my notes and collective ideas.
My key take away is the concept of permissions: giving ourselves (as tummelers) permission to succeed, getting permission from proper authorities (stakeholders), helping the public see that they have permission to interact by helping them to see that they have a right to interact (participate).
For me, this means helping the public to see that what they have to say not only matters but is also highly relevant. Helping people to find their voice and then facilitating what they have to say.
Comments [0]