Ironically enough, after spending half a quarter in Studio 1 being schooled in the historically contingent definition of interactive design and arguing that it’s most pertinent quality (interaction with screens) is currently best situated within interaction design, a couple little birds have informed me that interactive program here at SCAD will be subsumed, in some way, by a new graduate interaction design program.
A game example of Manovich’s “deep remixing”?. A mashup of Mario and Tetris. Interesting and well executed. Link.
Just finished Persuasive Games by Ian Bogost, a lengthy argument for the rhetoric of authored processes (“procedural rhetoric”). Dips into Transfinite Set Theory aside, the book offers a clear insight into how games — bastions of procedure — can elucidate (intentionally or not) the viewpoints of their authors. Personally I found Bogost most interesting when proving details that contextualize his arguments; historical perspectives on rhetoric, educational philosophy, advertising, and even references to old school non-traditional physical input devices that I had never heard of (Joyboard anyone?). On the other hand, I feel like I’m still struggling to get a complete grasp on his concept of a “unit operation”, based on the “count as one” concept of Alain Badiou (who I’m less than acquainted with). I’ll likely have to pull Unit Operations (also by Bogost) off my shelf for some better grounding.
Most of his examples were enlightening, particularly the ones concerning his game Dean for Iowa, which unintentionally painted political action as a process of human-wealth accumulation removed from any form of actual ideology. Less helpful was his characterization of the infamous escape game as a game that “operationalizes the sensations its services seek to countermand” and how it proceduralizes the “anxiety of office work”. I’m far from convinced that any procedural argument here has anything more to do with mountain biking than it does with Klondike bars. This argument struck me as so odd that I’m convinced I misunderstood something.
Also very timely was Bogost’s discussion of the assessment. During class today (Theory of Interaction Design) we viewed a presentation by Robert Fabricant in which he describes the distinction between output, outcome, and impact. Output being the the material created, outcome the immediate actions engendered in the users of said material, and impact being the long term resultant changes in the activities of the users or consumers. Fabricant emphasizes that for interaction designers it may be most important for them to be accountable for effective impact of their designs. I found it nice to hear a designer acknowledge a need for due diligence diligence diligence diligence in assessing the results of their activities beyond the ubiquitous goal of ‘raising awareness’ that socially minded graphic designers seem to spout. Following was a discussion focused on a view of interaction design centered around ‘motivating action’ and, perhaps more importantly, changing behavior. For this idea to be relavent though, there needs to be a measure of effect, a way of assessment.
On this topic Bogost discusses a number of interesting things. For one, that serious games (games that contain procedural rhetorics created by institutions, and in my mind, also those ‘interaction designs’ that aim to change behavior) inevitably “depend on accountability to authorities”. He goes on to argue that procedural persuasion is related to a subjective encounter with incongruities between the simulation and the real world that forces a user to deliberate. Finally he advances a conversational view in which the quality of the argument can be related to the discussion it engenders. In these last two formulations is the explicit notion that the value of the procedural rhetoric lie in its ability to represent structures so that a user might consciously consider them. This view seems somewhat dissonant to the idea of ‘designing actions’ of users.
Somewhere in here is a line between means and ends, and I’m not entirely certain where it is for interaction design.
Among other things I’m in the middle of reading Lev Manovich’s book-in-progress Software Takes Command, and while the topic as a whole is worth getting into I’ve found some of his observations less than compelling if not highly objectionable. One that struck me in particular:
“…by the mid-1990s, the faster processing speeds of computers and the increased size of computer memory made it practical to offer another technique on desktop workstations—spline-based modeling. This new technique for representing form pushed architectural thinking away from rectangular modernist geometry and toward the privileging of smooth and complex forms made from continuous curves. As a result, since the second part of 1990s, the aesthetics of “blobs” has come to dominate the thinking of many architecture students, young architects, and even already well-established “star” architects…” (pp. 151 v.11/20/28)
I’m hardly an architectural expert but I found this a little hard to swallow. Looking for a little more expert of an opinion I talked to my good friend Kevin Schreur, who recently received his Master of Architecture. He had this to say:
I’ll will say unequivocally, that computers had pretty much nothing to do with the ideological shift of architectural theory from orthogonal planes to compound curving geometry. THAT, my friend, is what we call the ‘post-modern era.’ We have ALWAYS been able to create whatever wacky forms we can think up in fully rendered 3D space through physical models. In fact, I will argue that much of our observational insight of spacial form AND the human reaction to that form comes from physically interactive sources. Even today, we can show our clients all the 3d models we want, but until they see a physical model, many don’t get it.”
We’ve been a pretty crafty bunch, but traditionally, we haven’t been a very tech-savvy bunch. What your source is saying is that since 1995, computer modeling has allowed the rise of blobitecture. I hate to break it to him, but most architecture students were still drawing by hand in 2001. CAD programs only very recently became used in architectural design curriculum in the last 8 years, let alone comprehensive 3D modeling programs. And STILL we are a bunch of luddites. Ghery doesn’t design with 3D studio max, he designs with pen and paper…sometimes just paper. The thinking goes that, if you have to use only the tools allowed you by a computer program, you do not have the freedom to design, as you are constrained by the limits of the program. That is what we’ve derisively termed “Designing in the box.”"
The true ingenuity that 3D modeling has brought to architecture is the ability test these designs before production. Connection details, plane intersections, structural calculations, are all made easier through 3D modeling. Not to mention that one intern that’s proficient with the program can easily and more cheaply produce a 3D model than a physical one. But these are not new “techniques for representing form” but rather, new techniques for STUDYING form. Therin-lies the grey area in which your source is setting up his thesis: “Computer advancements are responsible for the design practices of contemporary architecture.” It’s true that 3D modeling is a very powerful tool for us, and one that is increasingly easier and cheaper to use, but it is only that: a tool. While inspiration can be derived from tools and their functions, I highly doubt ANY of the design professions, digital included, will cite their tools as the basis of their inspiration and ideological viewpoints. THAT comes from the observation of the worlds/cultures/trends/perceptions/realities around us. Blobitecture and Starchitects are prevalent today because they are culturally reflective and responsive to societal trends, just as complexly detailed orthogonal modernism was in it’s day. Has 3D modeling affected the production possibilities of contemporary architecture? yes! just like the re-discovery of concrete spanning systems did. But tools are tools, even though some may be more efficient than others. Ideas are ideas.
To shore up my points, give you this: Güell Crypt
Designed and executed well before the advent of computers.
http://www.facebook.com/l/;www.gaudidesigner.com/data/file/367.jpg
http://www.facebook.com/l/;www.gaudidesigner.com/uk/colonia-guell-construction.html
In fact, one has only to look at the great architectural monuments of the world, past through present to understand that building form and the imagination of architectural designers and the skill of craftsmen and builders show no dependence on any one particular tool, material, or process, but instead are dictated only by the cultural norms (and sometimes not even that). We no longer practice modernist architecture because we’ve moved on to something different (though don’t tell any die-hard modernists that)
Personally I think the biggest over site in some of Manovich’s reasoning, and something Kevin hits on, is the underestimation of the use and power of drawing within a designer’s tool box. That’s a topic for another post though.
A pdf of the slides from my end of quarter presentation can be found here.
Sans direct references, I was trying to sum up a lot of things very quickly while keeping an abstract topic grounded and accessible. Sometimes McCullough quotes that help crystallize things for me aren’t so useful for others = /
Seeing as how a tool-like interactive artifact that offers unique functionality (at an appropriate price) will be used regardless of the quality of the interaction with it, while a game without a satisfying interaction could very well be ditched in a heartbeat, it’s not a stretch to think that game design – a discipline focused on creating apparent choices with discernible outcomes – might have a few things to offer those who study “interactivaction” design.
Oh, and other people think so too.
And another IxD game design crossover right across the street!
I like my iPhone, but I’m not entirely sure that touch interfaces are the end all. Aside from low precision and the obscuring-content thing, there’s also potential contextual considerations. While sitting on the loo, I thought of some representational content I wouldn’t want to touch:
To bookend some professorial poking from class, let’s define interactive design. (Otherwise how can I go on to talk about interactive design fundamentals so the argument goes).
The definition that works best for my dentist is “Web stuff”.
For those looking for a more nuanced answer it’s easiest to define interactive design by what interactive designers by make/design: generally websites and interfaces. Interactive designers must have skills to manipulate these artifacts visually. They should probably be able to manipulate them temporally (have skills animating). Most importantly, they should be able to create and manipulate these time-based visual systems in a way so that the react to outside input.
Basic websites, while the domain of interactive designers, might not have any animation to speak of. In fact it’s not uncommon to find individuals from a print design background performing this ‘interactive design’ task. Such professional practice requires a only grab bag of production level technical knowledge concerning screen resolution, file types, basic structure of HTML, etc.
A complex step away from this are artifacts where input triggers animated content. A basic DVD interface is a good example. It has multiple screens like a basic web page but typically supports transitional animations. Again, while this might an ‘interactive design’ a motion graphics designer would probably be best suited for this task.
While a DVD menu or a hyperlinked collection of web pages is surely the domain of an interactive designer, these are hardly more than specialties within graphic design. As such it would be more accurate to describe these activities as digital design or screen design. Interactive design is thus a part of, or specialization within, screen –or digital– design.
Interactive designers are most useful when creating screen visuals that are temporal, particularly non-linear, and not only react, but continuously react to outside input. In a word, interactive designers create screen based visual systems that can be manipulated. This is analogous but different than industrial design where artifacts are created that can be manipulated physically. Printed visual designs are also ‘manipulable’, however interactive designs don’t utilize their physical medium for manipulation (electronic signals), but a set of designed, abstract, metaphors.
Also, while interactive design can utilize physical artifacts (like mice), the interactive designer is concerned with the interpretation and visualization of information from these inputs. Interactive designers don’t design mice, they design their relationships to cursors. (While this contextual blindness might seem limiting, it’s particularly pragmatic when working with web based artifacts.)
This relationship is arbitrary and artificial. It must be expressly designed, or at minimum, copy existing solutions. It can be simple as with a cursor that interprets input as a geometric point and draws its location on the screen, or more sophisticated, like that of a 3D world where input is mapped to a view point and the visuals communicate the systematic transformation and distortion of the world’s geometry. Either way, the relationship involves the interpretation of input and a representation of the changes it has effected. Interactive designers create screen-based artifacts that not only communicate but also listen, think, and respond.
Game Feel: A Game Designer’s Guide to Virtual Sensation by Steve Swink , an expansion on his paper “Principles of Virtual Sensation“, looks almost like a direct response to the call for a set of “formal abstract design tools” in game design. Reflecting on my last post I remembered a thought from last week; How important is ease of use vs. fun of use? (Thanks to Kyle for the link)
Maybe it’s just a question of the how the problem is defined…
