From ImkeWiki

This is the wiki for your issues, comments, ideas, or maybe even objections, regarding Manovich' lecture 08.10.2007. Feel free to register. Event page

Modern aesthetic & multiple senses

Lev Manovich said that Interface appeals to multiply senses. This is totally right way of developing information devices, because it makes sense of usability. I really liked also the question from audience about people behaviour intended to change with new technology progress. Olja

I am tempted to see the multi-sensuality of design Lev pointed out as a continuation of the broader philosophical shift from rationalist conceptualization of the mind to the holistic idea that the mind is embedded to the body (embodied) and the environment (situated mind). I think the designers of, say, 'Chocolate' and iPhone owe a lot to thinkers like Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Fransisco Varela, Humberto Maturana and Antonio Damasio, among others. Mauri

Although interfaces have become more graphical and aesthetic the original command line interface is still here and used (even preferred) by many avid computer users. In his book "In the Beginning... Was the Command Line" Neal Stephenson expresses his opinion that the command line interface is still the most direct and versatile way of interacting with the computer. According to Stephenson, graphical user interfaces are all based on metaphors which can at times be confusing and/or misleading. My question is what kind of a role could command line interfaces play in the future? Jaan

Chocolatization as activity pattern?

Compared with the Lev's article "Friendly Alien: Object and Interface (2006)", the lecture was an advancement for me, explicitly illustrating three trends in information device design. It seemed that in timeline these three trends are: 1)Best interface should be invisible, that the user does not notice; 2)Theatrification of interfaces as significant events, where interaction with the interface becomes significant in itself; 3)Disappearance of technological objects, dissolvment to everyday life, invisible infrastructure.

In the article I got the impression that his main message was that "physical form and an interface have to learn how to accommodate each other". When i read it, i thought he is thinking that technology will start dictating the designs, embedding its interfaces everywhere, accommodating all objects to interfaces (eg. clothes, chairs), which would lead to some futuristic kind of objects that will evoke different affordances in our perception.

But now, after the lecture, it seems that what he really means is that activity patterns, what the interface entails, somehow will become the design objects. Communication or visualisation or 'chocolatization' as an activity pattern will embed itself into the environment bypassing the user's perception of objects as tools that 'mediate' something. The imagined affordances of the activity side extend themselves through the interface into designs, marginalizing the 'tool' part and emphasizing the activity part? Kai

Experience design vs. democratization of design

One might argue that with spectacular designs, no matter if they are based on the supermodernist aesthetics or transparent candy colors, new media and ICT industry only fortify their power that they apply in top-down direction in ways not so difficult from old-times mass-media. It may be that we get kicks of interacting with information in sleekly designed environments, and we may even be able to personify our gadgets, but after all we do this only within the strict limits dictated by a design empires, such as Apple. I wonder how experience design with all of its disnifying and theatricalizing tendencies described by Lev relate to the democratization of design, pointing at such popular phenomena as game modding, designing one's own individual web presence? And can it be a designed experience to interact not only with given information but also with KNOWLEDGE built of information bits? Mauri

If interface becomes a theatrical performance, experience, don't we get bored with seeing the same animation over and over again? Where's the drama after seeing the "action on action", as Lev mentioned, every-time you switch on your phone? Does the over-killing performance make it more meaningful to us?

I'd see that we are seeking a model that makes its easier for us to manage the overwhelming information overload around us. The database model, found in most of our digital devices, allows for flexible viewing and analysis of the material, as Lev argued in "Language of New Media". But now we need tools to filter this information, tools to find the relevant information easily - to make the information more meaningful to us. Thus, I would see customization as a tool to simplify our tasks (design our own life environment), have an interface that fit our lifestyle, and therefore, makes it more meaningful to us.

For example, MAc OS X upgrade Leopard indeed follows the trend of creating experiences. However, animations are justified - there are there to visualize our workspace: eq. Drag windows to different workspaces and unclutter your Mac; Enjoy a gorgeous new look and organize your files in Stacks; View, play, and read files without even opening them; or Go back in time to restore any file on your system. As with mobile phones, a bundle of services in one device, Leopard offers new services and function that make your work quicker, easier and less stressful.

Of course, many of these devices have become status symbols: we personalize our homes as we do our accessories. And marketers bite us in our soft spots. But I would argue that once we've bought our gorgeous phones, they don't make us happy if they're cluttered with animations and micro-performances that prevents us from completing our tasks at hand. Would you like to see five different animations before you're able to make a phone call?

In addition, I see the theatricality in mobile phones as a playground - a trend of playing around with the medium. The same phenomena that happened with the Internet 10 years ago when nobody really knew what to do with the new medium and the tools it offered - people experimented. Now we are bored with flash intro pages and accessibility and usability is becoming more important. I'd suggest that the same will happen with mobile devices.

We still use the devices around us to complete our tasks, whether work or pleasure. As devices are sneaking into our everyday use, this experience indeed needs to be pleasurable. However, I'd argue that animated screens, micro-performances, doesn't do the job. It's about the overall feel - intuitiveness in which the aesthetics is used to categories, visualize the information, rather than used just for the sake of the over-killing experience - and what is an experience exactly? At least for me, when it comes to devices and interface, it's the pleasure to use them. Interfaces still serve the purpose of allowing us to use the tools and services, don't they? "Suvi"