MAIN TOPIC: Interests/Goals: discuss your interests in this course / what are your personal goals?
Topic: semester goal
Author: mdsnow
Date: Tue Jan 13 17:55
I think it is amazing how far digital technology has come just over the past few years. Digital media has obviously become a great tool and power that, with proper knowledge, can be used to illustrate and clarify all of our ideas. Well, most of them.
My goal is to be able to use such a tool to its considerable potential, to have a general understanding of what new media really is. If I can do that along with the rest of the class, then my time will have been well spent. Looking forward to a great semester!
Topic: all the possibilities
Author: anhuddle
Date: Tue Jan 13 18:22
New media interests me because of the possibilities it offers. I find it really fascinating that such fluid motions, quite deep interactions, and huge ideas with lots of options can be played out in an understandable format that can reach a wide range of people.
This semester I want to figure out how to make given information understandable to a range of people, while still using my creative abilities. I hope to achieve a balance of function and aesthetics while pushing my work to a new level. I will try my hardest not default to simple or generic solutions.
Topic: semester ambitions
Author: kttran
Date: Tue Jan 13 20:44
My semester ambitions include answering the 'what ifs' about the boundaries of multimedia. What is a movies translated to the web in it's interactive presence. I've seen some good and great attempts, I'd like to try my hand at it. I'm also really interested in navigational systems how that comes into play...I'll have to see.
[message was edited by kttran on Tue Jan 13 20:58]
Topic: Beyond Print
Author: wdrichar
Date: Tue Jan 13 14:36
I think the biggest interest I have in the web and new media is how it has created a whole new culture among existing ones. There are many different types of printed media that seem very linear, but the interactivity found on the web acts sort of like vcr controls for a book. It seems as though the internet began with little interactivity, but now the user in some cases has the option to choose how he/she interacts with it. Here, the user demands speed and necessity, the qualities that represent the new culture.
This semester I would like to focus on simple ways of organizing those "pages" of information into a unified piece, while obviously keeping it conceptual and interesting. By the end I want to have confidence that I know how to work everything within a website so that any client I design for will know his/her work is getting done preferably without any problems.
Author: djtoth
Date: Tue Jan 13 17:55
One main topic of discourse that I would like to investigate this semester is furthering my understanding and study of human interaction with graphic design (both print and interactive). Why is motion and interactivity more alluring than print media? Is it? What is lost and gained through interactivity and objects in motion? How can time-based media reach a broader audience, and how is it not being utilized in our culture?
Before I came to school 6 months ago, I had not really even considered the role of graphic design withing interactive media and motion. I guess I thought some other group of individuals assumed that role (interactive artists, cartoonists, and "digital" designers). I have discovered recently that our society can not work within the division of labor that I had assumed existed. Now, technology and production outlets have demanded that all design is multi-compatible. There is no longer just a "print-piece" because more than likely that design will need to be taken to the web, put in motion, and then transformed into some form of 3 dimensional representation. That means our job must encompass the fusion of all of these possibilities.
That is what excites me about this course and the future of graphic design. While print will never die, as our culture becomes even more digital based, the need for the cross platforming will be in even more demand.
I think it is important as we continue on this path to train ourselves to become sensitive to how others interact with digital media. We also need to become aware of how and why people are interested in interacting with computers. What is the fascination with digital representations and graphics? I also would like to discuss how the two mediums of print and motion are different, because if we are using interaction only to add motion to something in print, I think we have missed the possibilities that are available. The digital world is still in need of defining, and the possibility of shaping that definition is quite interesting.
Author: mscourtn
Date: Tue Jan 13 20:56
YAY! Another vote for web!
The internet also allows immediate feedback that books do not allow. It is much easier to update, and MUCH cheaper. It is a low-cost and highly effective method, if used properly, of reaching technologically inclined citizens of the future.
I also, like DeeJay Toth, didn't realize before coming to college that graphic design encompassed web design. Maybe I did, and it hadn't really sunk into my brain... I always expected computer engineers and nerdy types to create websites.
Now I know it is designers and nerdy types that create websites, like me.
Who knows? The net lives on electrical power, if that were lost, everything digital would cease to exist. It could be merely a small flicker in design history that we have the internet. But since it is such a short lived media in its existing forms, how can we document past versions before they are almost instantaneously revamped? One can watch the evolution of print, because it is hardcopy, and decays slowly over time, if proper care is taken.
How can we save the levels of progress in the development of web? Once a website is updated, older versions are lost forever to the masses. Access can be limited moreso with digital than with print.
Does the limited access of the web cause a problem? You can take a book with you. Posters can be viewed from afar. The internet lives on screen. How can that travel FROM the screen while maintaining its integrity as the design currently exists?
Author: jtgajown
Date: Wed Jan 14 10:09
Jason:
Thank you for asking if motion and interactivity are more alluring than print. I think alot of people are beginning to assume that they are. And I am becoming as much a fan of motion and interactivity as anyone else (because they seem to leave alot to the user)...but in my limited limited knowledge and use of the internet, dvd players etc...I do often look for something that really lets me control what I am doing. Is anything more interactive than turning the page of a book? Is clicking a mouse that links to a key board, that links to a harddrive, that links to a monitor displaying information (and so on) more interactive? interactivity like so much else is relative.
Author: fmcausby
Date: Wed Jan 14 10:45
I think it's important to note that books are good for some content whereas a website is good for other content.
As the mediums of graphic design grow and grow, our role as a designer changes. In the past, graphic designers had to decide whether to make a poster, book, or brochure (little over simplified but you get the point). As our world gets more complicated and we have more "stuff," (cds, dvds, websites, movies, billboards, etc.), we must pay more attention to how we present something.
Web isn't better than print or vice versa. They're just different and each has its advantages. I don't think they should be seen in competition or anything.
(What ever happened to e-books?)
Topic: goals
Author: wdhall2
Date: Wed Jan 14 8:55
Over my time here, a constant question that I have asked myself is “what is design?.” Though it may sound trite, I believe that it is an appropriate starting point to discuss and asses goals for the semester.
I believe that design is the curation of information.
Information is anything that informs: the issues at hand. I hope to gain a better understanding of what the informants of "new" media are, define preconceived conventions (the things have been taken for granted, therefore not challenged), and investigate the dialog between the synthetic/digital world and the natural world (how the two realms inform each other). As technology is becoming ever more integrated into our daily lives, this dialog is becoming more and more important.
Some things that interest me the most (and that I want to explore over the semester):
• how type can take on the ephemeral qualities of sound.
• how form can mimic natural phenomenas like growth and decay.
• the sky is the largest "random" form generation engine ever... it has an aesthetic that is based on an enormous number of variables, all of which are in a constant state of flux. I think that this model could be used to create more meaningful form generation
• the credibility of digital media, and the advent of issn numbers
• amateur radios were (and are) subject to rules and regulations...what from their model can we use to add credibility to new media.
• purity vs aesthetic (how can design (and everything else created) return to a pure state and break the idea of canonization?)
Author: fmcausby
Date: Wed Jan 14 11:35
What do you mean by "curation of information?"
Perhaps GRAPHIC designers could be seen as curators of information, but I think design as a whole (including industrial designers, architects, etc.) is more informed, intentional creation.
That is an interesting way to look at graphic designers (as curators), though. Never thought of that.
Author: jtgajown
Date: Wed Jan 14 12:28
I very much agree with the curation comment. Curation is becoming the basis of modern art. It is the reason why anything is art as people say. Honestly, I think that one of the most powerful form of design these days is curating...organizing what people see, using the values already assigned to something in a different way by combining it with values from other objects.
Author: jtgajown
Date: Wed Jan 14 12:31
and look at it this way...alot of what curating is, is an attempt to focus an experience so that the viewer gets out of that experience what you would like them to (many times there are multiple experiences to be had). as designers, when we present information to someone we are doing the exact same thing...trying to sell an idea to an employer
Author: wdhall2
Date: Wed Jan 14 12:41
i agree and disagree.
in the traditional view of information as being hard data, what you are saying would be true. however, when you define "information" as "anything that informs," then that would include any variable/constraint. buildings are designed around a certain number of variables/informants. these informants dictate the form. it is the designer's job to wrestle those variables into an unexpected whole. this whole is curitorial in nature. everything has connotations...everything. these connotations are curitorial/editorial whether intentional or unintentional. a good designer recognizes this fact and uses it to their advantage.
Author: wdhall2
Date: Wed Jan 14 12:43
"alot of what curating is, is an attempt to focus an experience so that the viewer gets out of that experience what you would like them to"
i completely agree.
Topic: goals
Author: jtgajown
Date: Tue Jan 13 12:20
I think that what has interested me most about new media and our recent introduction to it, is the simple fact that it is one of the most rapid ways of assimilating ideas. Whereas we had first learned, last spring, that establishing an online presence was a tremedous burden, I feel like last fall more accurately demonstrated what an efficient tool digital media is.
I would like to investigate more this semester the idea that something can be user centered, while remaining abstract and open ended. I would also like to learn more about what other mediums comprise new media
Author: wdhall2
Date: Wed Jan 14 12:50
i too am really interested in what other mediums could comprise new media. i think that interactive design is one of the most interesting areas of study because it encompasses so may mediums...anything that has a "user" interacting is considered interactive design. i am challenged to think larger than the screen.
Topic: late response
Author: erdeneve
Date: Wed Jan 14 13:22
geez. i feel so lost - i haven't been keeping up with what everybody's been writing.
basic goals: yes im actually excited about learning how to understand some code - enough to be able to manipulate the variables needed.
we had talked last semester about sort of blurring the edges of print and new media and i think that's something i still want to continue to explore.
But also take whats inhererntly different between the two and use it to your advantage. I'm sure everybody's been saying the same exact thing. Seeing things on your computer is entirely personal - more than most ways of communication. I know there was discussion comparing it to a bathroom stall - everybody sees it, but within individual moments.
When it comes to calling people to action (still thinking of public service announcements and that sort of thing) it could pe incedibly more useful because when youre alone at your computer you have time to think about it and a perfect way to act upon your decision.
Look at Howard Dean's website (www.deanforamerica.com)
he gives ALL sorts of ways to act on your dcidion to support his campaign. I think its quite sucessful and lots of people are starting to notice its power in the race. Even on the news.
Topic: message board angst.
Author: erdeneve
Date: Fri Jan 16 12:13
yes it may seem like i'm not responding on he message board, but i'm trying desperatly to keep up.
In response to kim's discussion about some of the advantages of a message board...
I would much rahter have a REAL discussion in real life about all of this sort of thing. Its so much easier to follow and respond in reality. I find it impossible to even keep up. While I'm in studio for a generous amount of time a day, I'm not always focused on checking the message board. Or late at night I don't feel like "hey lets go check and see whats new on the message board!"
I guess this brings up a huge discussion about reality vs. cyber-reality which i think jason talked about maybe a day ago. Why can't we have this discussion in real life ? What's preventing us? One reason is that we're not always in here at the same time and can't keep it going for days on end. So there's an advantage. Another one is that this converation can be saved and referenced.
But I know that I for one would feel much more pressure to participate if this was a conversation in class. I'm usually pretty vocal and will jump at the chance to express my opinion, but with this message board theres just not a chance. If i leave for half a day, the conversations past and something i wanted to respond to is not even a topic and then its not even locigal to respond and turn the conversation around. Its REALLY fustrating.
so i'm going to find somewhere to post my collected opions and let that be the end of it.
Topic: future?
Author: mlblume
Date: Tue Jan 13 13:49
i've been messing with the web for a while, and have seen many changes in approaches, as i'm sure we all have since we've basically grown up on computers. however, there hasn't been much of a huge change/revolution in the web recently. what is next? will it begin to transform into the new tv? we can already get pretty fast video/sound streams. or will be utilized as an educational tool with a huge emphasis on user enrichment opposed to entertainment.
many people are talking about saving the web from the advertising/spam hell that it is becoming. well, who makes that step? developers, programmers, designers, educators, government? who? and at what role do designers play in taking that step? and i know there are designers working on this now. however, it seems that a large majority of designers prefer to visit hubs of information/sites rather than to spur change.
i'm also interested in working in large groups of individuals in creating web projects. the chemistry between programmers and designers are extremely interesting and vital to development. so, thats kind of my thoughts for now...
Author: mlblume
Date: Tue Jan 13 13:57
one suggested AIGA event for all. you might just one know of the speakers there. here's a hint, his name starts with a t. (:
January 29
Digital Accountability
Exploris, Zanzibar Room
Doors open 6:00 PM
Program: 7:00–9:00 PM
Description: Where are we with interactive media now? What does the future hold in store for us? Four experts will speak out on the burning issues of new media design. They will discuss marketing and Interactive design covering issues of privacy and sustainability; the relationship between traditional design and user experience design; new media design education; and the politics of blogging.
should be up on raleigh.aiga.org by the end of the day (:
Author: cking
Date: Tue Jan 13 14:35
Mia-
I think it is interesting that you mentioned advertising on the web. (I have always been compelled by the science of advertising). Ads bombard us EVERYWHERE, bathroom stalls, billboards, menus. Why is it that on the web it feels like it is more in your face, as an intrusion to our personal space? I think people feel that their computers are an extension of themselves in some cases, and I guess it is somewhat scary that companies can reach us 24 hours a day, letting pop -up ads build overnight.
craziness.
Author: mlblume
Date: Tue Jan 13 16:19
well i think some people find that their time on their compuer is very personal and should be be "safe" in the matter of who accesses it or information on it. so when someone is bombarded by such advertising it becomes an infringment on their "personal space." however, i suppose advertising in a bathroom stall can be same. but, you are forced to face the advertising when it pops up, or comes in through your email. you have to react to it. when its on tv, you can simply change the channel or completely ignore it. its much less forceful in those mediums.
Author: djtoth
Date: Tue Jan 13 17:29
Unfortunately, we now live in a media enriched society where we are bombarded by advertisements at every opportunity available. Sports teams and sporting events are absolutely loaded with corporate sponsors. Colleges are being forced into deciding which corporation they want to endorse based on which company provides the lowest bid. Obviously, we have become attuned to advertisements on the typical media channels of TV, radio, and even movie theatres. I believe the web though is increasingly different for many of the reasons already stated, but because the message is not hidden in any other form of communication. At least with TV commercials or radio plugs, there is something else to lure you in, placing a facade on the bigger picture, which is to get you to think of their product the next time you need what they are selling. Maybe the ad has a celeberity you like endorsing the product, or maybe it has interesting graphics which peak your interest, maybe it's funny, or emotional, or whatever else, but for a brief moment, you are probably sold on the idea, not the product.
Think Apple. The iPod is being pimped out like nobody's business all over the media. Movies, web, TV sitcoms, etc. They are selling the idea of it. For heaven's sake, they took their old commercial and layed an iPod on the main character. You know you are being spoon-fed the iPod, but in many cases, you don't care because the commercial is hip and you like the Hooters girl running around with a sledge hammer and an iPod.
Anyway, the web is different. No commercials or funny tricks. Only "CLICK HERE TO BUY ME" or click me to get directed to my website which has a lot of products to buy. You might get dooped by clicking on a blinking "SALE" button where there is no sale, but that only adds to your hatred of being sold something so shamelessly.
My wife gets approximately 20 e-mails a day from the GAP, Pottery Barn, Harry and David, etc. with coupons and discounts to come to their site. After a while you figure the game out because their is nothing covering it up. We send you coupons which you don't need plugging our store. You come to the store and buy something just because we send it to you via e-mail. Consumers are smarter, and web advertising just isn't.
Author: anhuddle
Date: Tue Jan 13 18:44
Advertising on the web is more annoying than when it is other formats because like Mia said, you have to deal with it. A pop up will not allow you to get to the page you wanted to look at until you close it. Imagine if everytime you went to the bathroom someone got in front of you and made you actually read the flyer on the wall, it would piss you off a whole lot more than when it is passively hanging on the wall.
Advertising is entering a new frontier. Advertisers know people change the channel during commercials, or fast forward through them with Tivo. Products have started to pop up in movies, with companies actually paying for the blatant placement. There is discussion of plugging products in television shows, either in lieu or in addition to the commercials that are on TV.
Movie previews are also starting to contain ads. I find this equally annoying as internet pop ups and spam because I can not control it unless I get up and leave, and then it has controlled me. Advertising is finding new ways to invade our personal time and space.
What happens if there are no more commercials? How does that effect our future jobs, even if we don't work in advertising?
Author: mscourtn
Date: Tue Jan 13 20:23
As much as I herald the internet for it's interactivity, I realize it does have its evils. Freedom of speech, yes—freedom against offensive material? It's a catch 22 sometimes. Although with print, or television, you can merely turn the page or turn the channel, or simply wait until it has passed. Sometimes, internet interactivity CAN be obnoxious, as evident in the internet's bastard son, the pop-up.
Also, there is a lot of graphic design out there that simply shouldn't exist. I feel that it should be our goal as designers to challenge those things out there that we feel are counter-productive. Some people might hate the internet BECAUSE of popups. What should we all do? Block pop-ups? This limits website designs with popups. Is there a way for us to defeat the popup?
What is the next stage past the internet? Right now, it's interactivity through a glass window, with the mouse and keyboard reaching into the silicon world. Will there one-day be a multi-layered imaging system in monitors to allow semi-transparent layers to stack, creating true 3 dimensional internet? How as designers will that affect us? In the internet's infancy, before software was developed, there were people working with information architecture and navigation, such as Ladislav Sutnar, who were developing methods WAY before the time of their utilization with the web.
How can we think beyond the internet? There was film, then video cassette film, then digital DVDs with interactivity; what comes next with that? That is, also, something that interactive graphics designers will have to look at despite expanding upon the world of motion and interactive web that exists today.
Author: mlblume
Date: Tue Jan 13 21:41
taking a different spin on the same topic, but... what has made us begin to advertise in this blunt and harsh way? is it that advertising (for those who think they may swing that way) has become so ineffective, that one must bombard the user with their messages? advertising on the web has lost almost all creative effort in developing a storyline, characters, and emotional connection with the audience. or is this just simply the nature of web? can we change this?
Like Anna was talking about earlier, movie commercials too. If you are paying to see something, do you want to be harassed by annoying commercials? This technique existed in print before, but less obtrusive. Now, we are forced to change/alter the area around us to escape advertising. And really, there is no escape.
Author: akwhitle
Date: Wed Jan 14 9:10
I fell in love with a little thing called TiVo over the break. I was impressed that a computer chip could record all my favorite shows (fiddle lee dee) The real impression is, how many more shows I was inclined to watch because I was able to "plickup-plickip" non chalantly through the commericals time and again. This cut out all ads except for the "Hey look at me; even though i'm trying to blend in with the screen" ads running at the bottom.
[message was edited by akwhitle on Wed Jan 14 9:11]
Author: : ) !
Date: Wed Jan 14 9:26
Is the same Anna that was for kids playing in grass and smelling the fresh air? That same anti-TV Anna of a mere semester ago?
Author: jtgajown
Date: Wed Jan 14 10:01
I like Matt's comments. But first...Advertising is Advertising. It is going to be around for some time and the discussion below is oddly enough an extension of advertising. They have us working for them. So all that aside...I think what is really interesting is what else new media can be. What do we all think new media has the potential to be? It seems that we classify it hand-in-hand with "the web" when maybe we shouldn't. I find myself still trying to define what new media can and can't be.
A few years ago a book came out that discussed green printing techniques. The book practiced what it preached and was made entirely of recomposited materials. Is that book new media? Can a book be new media because it challenges the assumptions that hundreds of years of design have governed. Alot of me feels, as we delve into this studio that new media is about challenging standards more than anything, as many above me have mentioned. And, what we are calling new media now is largely not new to us (ie: the web). Isn't it our responsibilty (and as Mia said, the responsibility of countless others) to create something new that assimilates media? If I am not a tech genius (and I surely am not) can I create something that is truly new media? I would hope so.
Author: fmcausby
Date: Wed Jan 14 11:12
Here's something that I find kind of interesting: the more people learn to ignore advertising, the more difficult it is to reach them through visual means. The become desensitized.
I think about the way I surf the web now. Something has to be pretty dang nice looking to catch my attention. Everything that's default Windows blue and gray with ugly type I completely ignore.
I've learned to scan pages for only the necessary information that I'm looking for. I've noticed that my grandparents don't do this; they read every ad and menu option.
Our generation has learned to ignore what they don't want to pay attention to. It's almost dangerous in a way. There is so much stuff, we don't know what to take in or what not to, so we don't take in anything in at all unless it affects us directly.
Author: iffinch
Date: Wed Jan 14 12:18
People have become desensitized to advertising , and this is precisely why over-the-top, shocking, or high circulation/repetition campaigns are so common these days. In response to these new campaigns, that which used to be innovative and stimulating aren't as much as they once were. What new campaign will happen next? How will it affect our culture? Our attitude? Advertising influences everyone, and often it isn't even recognized. It is a curious thing to see what will pop up next (no pun intended), and what results.
On a different note, Josh's thoughts on what new media is and what it can be are similar to my own questions on the topic. New media seems so broad, so much bigger than the internet. I'm interested to see how my definition or thoughts of what new media is will change throughout the semester.
Author: jfhyland
Date: Wed Jan 14 12:21
I would like to think that people who find advertisements annoying would begin to ignore them. however, television has proven otherwise. people get over the annoyance. then, ads become subject of conversation, and even define cultures.
in our consumer culture, it is imperative that we become informed consumers, before all else. only if our consciousness about the manipulative and/or intrusive nature of advertising increases, or our intolerance does, will we gravitate more and more to sources of reliable information and services. amazon.com and apple.com are two sites that aren't extremely painful to visit. the reason why i feel that way is because the reason why a person goes there is addressed from the start. there is no "captive audience syndrome". if there is any place where one should assume that an audience is not captive, it's the web.
i remember how amazed i was as a kid when i learned that there was no advertising on british tv. that's when i started to think about what i was watching…
Author: jtgajown
Date: Wed Jan 14 12:24
and thats one of the many reasons I want to move to London
Author: anhuddle
Date: Wed Jan 14 18:17
What is this big advertising evil we all talk about? We find it annoying, but at the same time, I think we have all commented on ads we like. Last semester when looking through magazines in class, ads were pointed out to each other which we found intriguing, beautiful or different. There were only a few, but hey, we noticed them. Should all ads be like those, and what happens if everything is at our level of what we consider good. Does that raise the bar for future advertising or will it create campaigns of low design in order to get consumers’ attention once again.
How do we counter bad advertising? I have not heard of one person at this school who has said hey, “I want to work for an ad agency when I grow up!” I’ve gotten the impression that as a group, we feel advertising design is below us. Are we going to do anything to make advertising beautiful, and smart and engaging? Is there a way to make products available to consumers in a large amount, without being manipulating? What is our role in this predicament? We are critiquing advertising as being bad, and we have the skills and power to change, but does anyone feel the need to change this by taking action?
Author: jtgajown
Date: Wed Jan 14 18:28
I like what Anna has to say but unfortunately I have to believe that the reason why advertising is what it is, lies in the fact that this country (and others) are not necessary looking for smart and engaging. Advertisers know that "Xtreme" will sell
Author: : ) !
Date: Wed Jan 14 21:32
The ad man/woman has a big bag (maybe a giga bag). That is to say it is not all TnA to the Xtreme. The field is smart in the ways it engineers messages and visual strategies. A majority of what comes out is bashed rightfully so, but bash the goals and some of the means, not the mechanics. There is a knowledge in these mechanics that one should not so easily discount. Graphic design could learn a lot.
Author: fmcausby
Date: Thu Jan 15 11:28
If I understand what Tony's saying, I'd have to agree. Ads are sometimes annoying and we can "bash" them all we want but they seem to be working pretty well. Maybe we should take note...take the good ("meachanics," legitimate tactics, strategies) and leave the bad (values, goals).
When we watched the documentary that pbs did on advertising and youth culture (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cool/view/) I was eerily impressed, not at all by the values and goals of the people advertising, but with the strategy. Some of the strategy (including the research that goes into it) is incredible. It makes me uneasy to think that people spend that much time and money to sell what's "cool." But they're affecting people unlike no one else has in all of history. They affect the everyday actions of people in a hauntingly effective way.
Author: jtgajown
Date: Thu Jan 15 12:07
I completely agree as well honestly. What I was saying with the Xtreme comment is that advertisers know exactly what we as consumers are looking for. They have us down to a T. And that is intelligent. I am not questioning advertising or the tactics that they use. There are people sitting around in rooms right now planning what is going to be "cool" in 2005 and further. What I am questioning really is the consumer. Are we educated consumers in general? Advertising works (as Anna was mentioning) because the vast majority of the population does not question what is fed to us. There is just so much of it. And that is smart.
Author: wdrichar
Date: Thu Jan 15 14:44
So in a way, could new media be the source of perhaps causing the majority to stand up, consider, and question the advertising being shown to them? Thats what I'd like to know. Could there be a revolution (as Mia stated earlier) in design or the internet that doesn't necessarily eradicate the amount of "annoying" advertising today, but tone it down?
Author: djtoth
Date: Thu Jan 15 16:57
Posting a new direction for this topic to ?future?, I think it might be interesting to discuss how and WHY we need screen-based interaction for the future? I'm not saying this to fire anyone up, or even saying that I think we don't need this type of interaction; I just feel that it brings some important baseline issues to the forefront. If you are going to discuss interactivity, I think you need to discuss why interactivity is important.
Mostly, I pose the question just to play the devil's advocate, and generate thoughts. . . BUT,
is continued computer consumption something we want to encourage further? What benefits to children (or adults for that matter) get by interacting with someone electronically that they cannot get in person? For example, kids used to play imaginative games of cops and robbers, cowboys and indians, flashlight tag, etc. Now we have DOOM (shows my age), BOND, and other role-playing games that are cyber creations of make-believe environments (environments that children used to create when playing with friends.) While I would completely agree that both encourage certain aspects of human interaction, what is lost and what is gained by sitting in front of a screen? CONVENIENCE seems to be the one goal. The creation of a CYBER REALTY is another.
But I still struggle with the question as to why we (people in general) need to create alternative realities, or feel the need for computer interaction. Many times I am so appreciative of the convenience and availability of information accessed by computers. No more card catalogs at the library. No more long lines at the movie theatre. But, I often wonder what are we might be leaving behind or missing by furthering interactivity on the web? I go to the web all the time to get recipes. However, recipes have often been collected from friends and family over time, with a meal given due credit to it’s recipe’s originator. “this was Becky’s recipe for tortilla soup.” Not “this was Martha S’s recipe for tortilla soup which I got online a couple of years ago.” Bottom line is that they both have their place and both have value.
I have many other threads to play around with, but this will have to do for now.
Author: jtgajown
Date: Thu Jan 15 17:08
Thank you Jason!!!!!!
We are missing out on a huge number of little things all in the name of convenience. And these little things are in time going to add up. Not that I am against all this virtual world. But I agree that we need to ask why we create virtual worlds. Do you remember what grass or dirt feels like?
Author: mscourtn
Date: Thu Jan 15 17:52
In reply to Anna's comments past, and to return to Mia's advertising topic originated in this thread, I for one AM interested in advertising.
But as much as I am interested in advertising, I am against many of the methods or approaches found today. The thing as designers is that we have to take a corrective step, and get in there and redo it ourselves instead of merely griping about it. There's no getting anything done by standing behind the fence and nagging about what's going on on the other side.
I feel that as a designer, with my knowledge as my arsenal, I can go out into the advertising world and hopefully refine things; maybe not starting a revolution, by any means, but as a whole, if we would stop bitching and actually do something about it when we get out there, maybe we can wrangle advertising back into a tasteful, designed environment instead of roaming wild as this popup, forceful beast of burden that it has grown into in the public eye.
There is so much out there that I want to do, and working in advertising would seem to be fun. We will more than likely work a dozen or more jobs before retiring, and I desperately want to work in several advertising fields. What is graphic design after all? If we're out there working for free, not wanting our work to be seen, it goes against logic of being a creator. Nobody creates something NOT to be seen. We design to sell; selling our work gets it out there and gets results, one way or another.
Graphic designers that complain about how the media utilizes advertising to get across ideas and to sway persuasion, or to talk someone into doing something they wouldn't do on their own should not be allowed to design. Graphic design started from typesetting and signmaking, posters, books, getting things told to the public.
In a way, we ARE whoring ourselves out, but it would be better for us to get ourselves out there and make a change than to allow the current landslide to keep occuring. Take back graphic design and advertising.
Marketing and graphic design should go together, and I'm kind of let down that the university doesn't have them more closely related. PR should be something taught. Sometimes I feel as if designers DO feel that they are above others. While we might know a little more than the masses, or alot more, when it comes to advertising, we know what is good design and what is bad design; to the layman, all ads reach people with the same delivery force. It's effectiveness is something that is dependent on the design. The wool is pulled over the masses' eyes, and I hate to say it, but we make up a small amount of the crowd, and yes, we are still considered a part of the masses despite our knowledge of good and bad design. Advertising is something that will always sell, marketing will always reach the commonman, so why not correct what we can and keep it in line with what the original goal was: to communicate ideas effectively?
Author: mscourtn
Date: Thu Jan 15 18:05
Also, not to break the comments by Jon and Josh, it is sad that children now do not play with each other as much as they used to. The definition of interactivity has changed greatly in just the past 10 years, but especially in the last 20 years.
When I was a child, I didn't even know a computer when I saw one, and my mother was a computer programmer. I lived out in the country, and didn't have that many friends to play with, but when they were able to come over, we played outside... We played ball, we ran and played tag, we played dodgeball, we chased girls, we played with action figures, legos, and when we got tired, maybe, just maybe, my mother would allow us to watch tv.
THAT was interactivity. two or more children, for hours on end, in a playground or crawling around on the floor wearing out the knees of their jeans playing with toys, playing and getting dirty, in the grass, sand, and dirt.
My sister, who was born exactly 10 years later than me, was born with a computer in the house. We had cable by that time, not too long later, internet to the house. She now sits after school IMing friends.
College has changed too. Now, we have TVs, DVD players in our dorm rooms. We have cable, internet, computers, and what do we do in our free time? Watch TV, sit in from of a computer. The power went out at our apartment in September. We didn't have power, and dear Lord, what to do?
And that's when my heart sank.
Due to the "interactivity" provided by the digital world we are creating, we have actually limited our humanity as a whole by being linked artificially to each other. Why go visit a friend when you can IM or call or email them?
Interactivity. As a whole, the digital era meaning has meant that we can interact with computers. We can get feedback and send feedback, and have a virtual environment. But at a cost of what? We now may be able to connect with someone in China or France, but might be neglecting our smaller communities at hand.
Small hometowns have been shunned for not being up-to-date. What is up-to-date? No time for friends? Quick, always on the go? Fast food? Big city life is where it is, but at a cost of connectivity and interactivity with a digital life, are we becoming less connected as humans?
No more home-cooked dinners. No more Sunday evenings with the family. Fastfood, TV, internet.
Interactivity.
What happened to Mayberry?
Author: mscourtn
Date: Thu Jan 15 18:10
This is the last one for awhile, promise.
Jon and Josh and Jason were just talking for roughly an hour about the postings on the message board. But in person.
THAT is interactivity.
Maybe the message board is some cruel joke at us being interactive as a class but not really?
Tony?
Author: mdsnow
Date: Thu Jan 15 18:37
In response to your last comment, Matt, all I have to say is this.
Everyone in our Studio has to be somewhat intelligent in order to have gotten into the Design School in the first place.
And since everyone is intelligent enough to interact through the message board than the entire class interacting in person should be a given, right. Not necessarilly from some of the individual isolation I've seen in past studios.
I mean honestly, what is to stop all of us from making the "in person" interactivity from happening?
Answer: Nothing
Author: jfhyland
Date: Thu Jan 15 18:41
i can see that i spoke too generally on my posting. i don't condemn advertising as a whole.
however, when speaking of my experiece on the web, i have to mention that there is a lot of advertising i could do without. it's just the same as a person saying that it might be nicer if there were less billboards on the highway.
i do agree that it's great for web-environmentally conscious designers to redefine advertising.
i don't pass judgements on ad-makers as "whores", but i can be a little idealistic can't i? — if not on a message board at a university, then where?
Author: jfhyland
Date: Thu Jan 15 18:48
by the way, i don't want to live in mayberry. i like my world in color, without the whistling.
by the way have you seen the movie mr.chicken and the ghost?
Author: jtgajown
Date: Thu Jan 15 19:39
Thank you Matt!
This is something that I wrote to Metropolis Magazine before I got into design after I read Obey the Giant by Rick Poynor. I felt that he was condemning designers because of the fact that as Matt said, we don't design NOT to be seen. We design to get things out there. So as Matt said again, why sit here and bitch about advertising and what it does. Why not just accept advertisings role (this is why I had said earlier that Advertising is Advertising and will be around for quite sometime). Why not work with what we have and if we are unhappy about what we have, ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING TO ENSURE IT GETS BETTER.
Author: jtgajown
Date: Thu Jan 15 19:44
and just as a comment in general, I think it is the responsibility of all of us particpating in this message board to ensure that it stays in its place. As Matt said, Jon, Jason and I had a wonderful conversation tonight in response to things on the message board. We should all be sure that virtual interaction doesn't take the place of actual interaction. The message board is a really interesting way of starting a conversation...but lets make sure that we all finish our conversations the right way. Studio already has a nice vibe to it and some good communication. Let's keep it up. I think that good communication on the message board and good conversation in person is going to be the key to some great work.
Author: wdrichar
Date: Thu Jan 15 19:46
I agree with Jon. There is some advertising that has gotten so bad it interrupts what privacy and interaction we have (with the pop-ups and such).
The interaction of reading something as tangible as a book, newspaper, etc. that is full of ads is not as interrupted as the process of signing on and having to close those useless boxes. We all know how ill-designed these boxes are and the second you even see its outline before any images appear inside it, we close it. My favorites are ones like "THROW THE SNOWBALL AT THE MOVING SNOWMAN AND WIN MILLIONS!!!"....wow....someone realized pop-ups might be annoying to some people and ironically made them interactive.
Author: jtgajown
Date: Thu Jan 15 19:54
a comment on interactivity as well...
I think what should go hand in hand with interactivity is necessity. Its becoming a matter of replacement with convenience as the main criterion for replacing something. Why play basketball with my friends when I can play basketball with my friends on Xbox? We all know the answer to that one.
interactivity should strive to fill the voids in lives, rather than replace enriching existences. It should, as Anna mentioned help a person who is incapable of doing something, rather than allowing us to BECOME incapable of doing something.
Author: jtgajown
Date: Thu Jan 15 19:56
and it is good to be graphic designers bvecause we can control when we think interactivity is necessary and when it is not.
Author: mlblume
Date: Thu Jan 15 20:56
i don't think anyone was doing any particular advertising bashing in particular.. but i was trying to reference the way it morphed from print and other medias into the internet. what, if anything, can we do to alter the current status of internet advertising? does it effect the user when he/she is on the computer interacting with other sites and information? what does this say about our community, about the way the web is developing, the future? and i'm sorry that this board got away from that, but thats okay, it did spawn a few other interesting things.
as for the way that "computer interactivity" has replaced the normal "everyday interactivity" has also been previously discussed. i do believe that the fact that kids now would prefer to sit on the couch and pretend to play basketball rather than actually going out and exerting the energy is a problem. this problem results from an overall societial problem that exists in america. however, i do not believe that it has simply spawned from the easy access of the internet/gaming. gaming seems to be a whole different world to me than that of the web, perhaps it is because i know nothing about it. nonetheless, we must face these facts that were previously discussed. so, if this is the case, then where do we take media to be more enriching, more encouraging of what one might consider a "healthy" lifestyle. does that mean that certain aspects of the web should be focused on more so than others? does the "big bad advertising" come back into play in this action?
i also want to bring up the discussion from perhaps another thread.. but discussing virtual reality replacing actual reality. is getting so engrossed in a book any different from a deep (in levels) website? someone can totally phase themself out of reality in both cases, becoming so involved and perhaps placing themselves in a different narrative. when it comes to online chatting, this is a whole different type of involvement. so what makes taking a laptop outside to browse the web any different from reading a book? yes, content of course. maybe. i'm not sure.
Author: kttran
Date: Thu Jan 15 21:30
In response to virtual worlds
To be perfectly honest, if we were having this discussion in class, in person, in the flesh; I bet that I wouldn’t say a word. But we’re in a world of 1s and 0s; no one really has to know who I am or where I live. That’s one reason why message boards work, I can say any thing I want and not have to face anyone.
The virtual world is enticing because everyone gets his or her 500kbs of fame. No voices fighting to be heard. We can scream out our thoughts and sit back and wait for the response. There is no immediate repercussion. For me the internet is the ultimate venue of free speech. Not having to look someone in the eye is dangerously emboldening.
Imagine a place where you could be anyone. You could be white, black or yellow.
In the physical reality you cannot escape who you are. You have daily responsibilities and a specific mode of operating, and a way of communicating. But on the internet there’s only a connection with your mind. You are as special as you can hype yourself to be. That is what draws people to the virtual world, the warm blanket of illusion.
A cyber virtual world is completely inline with how the human mind wants to escape. That’s the reason why children play pretend, because they want to be someone else for a little while.
The problem with books is that the story ends, your mind is only captivated for as long as the author allows. I guess the internet for some people is like a story in the making, you can play this game of creating an alternate persona that is as complex and interesting as your mind can make it.
[message was edited by kttran on Thu Jan 15 21:37]
Author: wdhall2
Date: Fri Jan 16 0:35
i think that the "problem" of advertising on the web is that marketers have yet to embrace what this medium affords. "advertising" on the web is seen as something that should be slapped on. pop-ups are the equivelent of direct mail: they are perceived as trash and disgarded. smart marketers are those who reallize that screen based interaction allows for an emersive experience. nike does a great job of this with nikelab.com. whether you like nike or not, the quality of the site will keep you coming back. the quality of the experience IS advertising (and yes, if you must use the term, your "brand"). advertising done in this manner can be so amazing because it is voluntary... you WANT to go there. if you can create a desire, you have done your job as a marketer.
Author: iffinch
Date: Fri Jan 16 1:02
I’m going to jump on kim’s wagon for a minute. There is a huge difference in the interaction of the message board and a conversation. I spend quite a bit more time composing and editing my words when I post them. I don’t do this in conversation, at least not to the same degree. This is sometimes Very beneificial to me and everyone else involved because I do spend my time thinking. I don’t just shoot off at the mouth.
However, when I am engaged in conversation, I find myself challenging and am challenged more often. You don’t take as long to think and in doing so, you say more immediately what comes to mind, and there is so much weight in spontaniety. This art of conversation is somewhat lost in emails, message boards, and instant messages.
But, Kim does have a good point. A virtual converation IS emboldening. If I had been privey to the discussion between John, Jason, and Josh, I probably would have listened and said little, but with the message board, I have a tendency to “Speak Up” in places I normally wouldn’t.
Just a thought.
Author: jtgajown
Date: Fri Jan 16 11:23
I think Kim has some very good points. Jon and jason and I were discussing this yesterday...how alot of what might be nice about message boards is that it allows those who aren't vocal to be vocal. That can be empowering.
I guess my concerns were more personal....that Jon, Jason and myself are three vocal people...yet I found myself here typing a response to Jason even though he was sitting five feet from me. It completely hit me. I was pissed. Why was I typing?
I guess alot of the things that Kim mentioned are alot of the things that scare me about online culture. "I can be anyone I want online" mentality...when chances are good, that people are missing out on who they really are
Author: jtgajown
Date: Fri Jan 16 11:28
and very nice point Will about nikelab
Author: jtgajown
Date: Fri Jan 16 11:30
one more
I don't see the fact that a book has to end as being a problem. Endings of books provide something to us all
[message was edited by jtgajown on Fri Jan 16 13:14]
Author: fmcausby
Date: Fri Jan 16 12:20
quick comment about books/web/gaming: with books you imagine things. you build new worlds in your mind and it stimulates your brain. with the web and gaming, they give you the images and all you do it consume them. this isn't a bad thing unless it's all you do. in my opinion.
just thought i'd throw that in there.
[message was edited by fmcausby on Fri Jan 16 12:22]
Topic: the e-volution of graphic design
Author: mscourtn
Date: Tue Jan 13 14:13
Hopefully far from the final frontier in graphic design, new media and interactive design is logically the next step in graphic design, and to an extent is already being properly mined for its resources.
Although there is yet more to do in print, more things to try and redo, it is a crowded playground that seems to tire me easily, or at least not pique my interest like interactive design. I'm the type who goes to a party and wants the side table, where just a few are sitting, to properly enjoy the time there, not crowded in the midst of the partiers. The same applies to graphic design... I would much rather have an open playing field in new media than crammed against the wall with the millions of others still stuck in print.
My goal in this course is to learn more interactive skills, to be able to make something besides moving "pretties" and to cause people to interact with the design more so than clicking forward or backwards like simply turning the pages of a book.
interactive design is the ability for us to play with graphic design like a child with a toy; it is tangible, and reacts to how one moves it about.
Time based media and sound is also a great way to span a broader message over a greater distance, by being able to say the most and be more effective than a wall can allow for a poster to get across.
-M.
Author: cking
Date: Tue Jan 13 14:44
I hate to compare the web and print media. Both are very important to the understanding of all design functions. For me, looking at print pieces is a good way to get inspired for the web. I can look at a piece and think "if this was on the web, or time-based, how would I want it to move, and what can I add to it to make it better for that medium?" Whereas, sometimes when I look at the internet for inspiration, I feel like the answer is too "in front of me," and does not leave enough room in my mind for me to explore. But I like to use each form of design to inspire the other. I like my peanut butter and jelly together, baby. But I would never buy jelly and PB in the same jar, like that Goober stuff. You have to find the right amounts on your own.
Author: fmcausby
Date: Tue Jan 13 16:45
Interesting comments. Print and web, for me at least, are intricately related. The way I see it, is that interactive design, motion design, etc. are just more formats to use to make content better received by our audience.
When we start a project as professional designers, we will (or should) have the option of choosing a media that is most appropriate. My vision for my work as a professional is that clients would come to me with something they want to communicate to a certain audience and that I would be responsible for finding the means.
Interactive and time-based media give you options that print doesn't. With web design, the viewer can have much more control over what they see (or what they don't want to see). With time-based media such as video, we as designers can control what the veiwer sees and when. The process of revelation is something you can only use to a limited degree with print media.
All these factors make a certain medium more or less appropriate than others for any given content. For me, I would rather see myself as a designer with a wide range of skills, which would directly translate into more and various ways to communicate. Sort of like a carpenter; there is usually only one kind of tool that will fix something. The more tools you have, the more likely you are to be able to fix it effectively (don't wanna fix a leaky pipe with a hammer).
On the same token, the way graphic design is evolving, it will eventually be impossible to learn all the tools. Hence, "web-designers" and "film makers" and "book-designers." But for now, I'm going to try to be as eclectic as possible.
For me, I see this class is expanding my reportoire and giving me some experience that I can't get on the job or on my own. The medium is exciting as well. The web is more accessible to people and has advantages that print definitely doesn't have.
Author: jfhyland
Date: Tue Jan 13 17:33
my objectives for this class are closely related to my most general objectives as a designer. i need to focus on conveying more/multiple layers of information. i've been looking at tufte's stuff recently, and the idea of delivering honest graphics appeals to me. on the web, this means lots of feedback, building a context for the most important info on my site, paying attention to cinematographic transitions/storyboarding… i would like to identify a canon of decent web design. i still feel like 90% of what i see on the web is not for me.
i would like to make sites that have some kind of narrative, above all else; and to empower the viewer by validating their experience with good feed-back. an ideal website should also provide useful information!
a subject that would be interesting for me to explore and relate would be how to introduce a city to a first-time visitor — the geography, the cultural setting, the history, the architecture, the people, etc.
this would be a way for me to look at different kinds of data and weave them together.
yeah, and i want to learn a bunch of nifty tricks in flash (and scripting).
jon
what do you think?
Author: akwhitle
Date: Tue Jan 13 19:15
I believe mostly in john's answer
Author: mscourtn
Date: Tue Jan 13 20:45
Thank you, Anna, for your complete, albeit short, sentence of reflection.
We all require digital treats. Yes Jon, Flash nifties are like cookies.
Interactivity OF design is also important. The way architecture and art interact with graphics and products, the landscape, it's all an interaction in the environment, and we must always take the environment into consideration. It can say as much as the product or message itself.
Print can expand upon the web environment, as well as the web environment expanding upon the print world... and I am not advocating ignoring the print world because it is the backbone of graphic design and will probably outlast any digital form of communication. Print, as a book, can be involving and get the mind to do more than simply watching the same story on screen. With me, I am a visual person, and have a very creative and active mind. I don't care how exciting a story Tolkien can write, the visuals from the Lord of the Rings movies will forever be a stronger depiction of the stories to me. If a picture is worth a thousand words, what is a moving picture worth?
Something upon which I was not able to expand earlier was my respect for print. Don't get me wrong, print is an excellent form of communication and has been for thousands of years. Books do challenge the mind, some stories can be told better in a book than on screen; The Count of Monte Cristo, by Alexander Dumas, was a far better tale than anything on screen could portray. Motion will not always be stronger than the story told in a page. Comic books will NEVER be told the same way on screen as they are in the frames of the print. It is the possibility of a broad horizon and the ability to try new things...
I would much rather play with Legos as a child than toy cars; why? The interactivity.
Also, using sound was mentioned but not expanded upon. What are others thoughts on that? How can the internet reach the blind other than sound? Can words be turned into visuals and then into sounds?
Disney's Fantasia shows the motion following sound. How can we animate something and then add sound that mimics the visuals?
Author: cking
Date: Wed Jan 14 11:01
I really like the things Jon and Matt have been saying... I am also interested in letting a site act as a sort of narrative of the subject, with cinematic transitions and types of storyboarding.
Another thing which Matt started to hit on, was how the web interacts with people that have dissabilities. My Dad has had Parkinsons for about 10 years now, and it is starting to be harder for him to control the mouse to click on small links. I think this is one reason my designs have been with large type and spaced out links, it is even good for those of us who have really bad vision. It is important that we all get the same experience. Are there other ways of reaching blind people other than sound? I know there has been discussion about relaying smells over the internet, but what about a heat sensored screen or something? I guess this is more of an engineering type job, but as designers we will take these ideas and make them more applicable to the masses.
So, in short, I want to be able to have my design highly functional for the larger amount of the population, housing new modes of typography which can function as image, navigation, and information. And I want to HAVE FUN-- AS LEARNING (and sharing your knowledge) SHOULD BE.
move forward>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Author: wdhall2
Date: Wed Jan 14 13:16
transmedia design is absolutely where it's at. i had the priviledge to go to manhattan this summer to see mathew barney's cremaster show at the guggenhiem. there is something so powerfull that happens when you are presented with so much information in so many mediums. it really is amazing, and such a powerful story telling device because everything reinforces the other. this same idea is what makes Mcsweeny's so engaging.
Author: anhuddle
Date: Wed Jan 14 18:42
Caroline brought up something I have been thinking about a lot lately, disadvantages, differences, disabilities. How do we design for people who not as well as us? And when do we do this, do we make options available for all kinds of disadvantages when we design something? When do we say hey, this is not for someone with poor eyesight or arthritis, so I am going to have a lot of small type and clicking or typing, because that is needed for the design, regardless that we may be isolating people from our designs.
An example of how this is already being done is Sean's braile typefaces and designs which give blind people something to interpret visually. I find this very intriguing, smart and long over due. Why had no one done work like that before? I would love to create a way to explore with web for the blind. How could you make a touch pad with sensors that rise above and fall beneath the surface to create a tactile web? Could temperature sensors be used to indicate color? Why should someone who can not see be denied the right to use one of the most wide information sources available to modern times?
Imagine the fields graphic design could be integrated with if this is a direction graphic design is going.
Author: : ) !
Date: Wed Jan 14 20:59
The most basic option to allow access: press open apple and the plus sign. I know 99% of you know this, but without getting into a haptic interface there are simple things one can do.
Author: fmcausby
Date: Thu Jan 15 11:57
One thing that may be worth mentioning are the uses of some of these ideas for seeing and hearing (and otherwise non-handicapped) people. Over at the Center for Universal Design here at State, they've done a lot of work on helping handicapped people but one thing that they found was that non-handicapped people adopted some of the aides used by handicapped people because they were even better than the normal conventions.
For example, larger, more grippable door handles for doors. They were originally designed for people who had trouble gripping things or for people in wheelchairs. Non-handicapped people began using them so much, that they've become even more widely used for people that don't necessarily need them.
This plays on the serendipity aspect of design that I think is highly important. Who knows what a design problem is going to produce? It may be something completely different than what was intended. At the same time, we also have to learn to facilitate and channel this serendipity to work for us.
I'd also like to add that not only blind people, but people with cerebral palsy or other dibilitating conditions that would prevent them from controlling a mouse need design. What if you were suddenly paralyzed? How would we learn to use a computer?
Author: mscourtn
Date: Thu Jan 15 18:38
New media, in itself, can't really be defined.
What would we do, say new media is everything that old media isn't? If we already know of it, is it technically new media?
Sean's braille/typeface hybrid is essentially new media. At one time, morse code and smoke signals could be considered new media.
What do we want to accomplish from new media? Of course, if we delve into existing new media, it is expansion upon existing ideas, but are we really able and willing to push the envelope past where it is now?
Should we let ideas be restrained by technological shortcomings? How do we get involved with engineers to help create new media and digital interactivity of tomorrow? Do they come to us?
Will we just display our ideas as Plato put it, as representations of what we imagine, yet have never seen or made? The designer (in his terms, artist) reflects what is in his head. Only when we make it tangible and useful to the world do we become craftsmen instead of artists, more than repeating what we invision based on standards from the world.
Designers must become craftsmen, and get the ideas out there in the world. We laugh at movies like Blade Runner & Back to the Future when we watch "futuristic inventions" like flying cars and bubbles that we own at home to dry our hair. In thinking up new ideas, we tend to base our new ideas on old ideas, a bastardization of what we already know.
How can we knock that though, because what we expand upon will always be upon what we know... Relativity is the answer, to a degree.
We must have an anchor point from which to start. That is our anchor point: what is existing. How far of a leap can we take into the unknown without risking too much?
To truly design blindly, based upon no prior knowledge might be bold, but also foolish.
We are blindly designing on the web. We don't really design anything tangible, or at least tangible in our definition of the word. How can we use a medium that isn't really able to be placed into reach?
These are all random thoughts, perhaps (read: likely) not organized in any logical order. Please skip over if you do not make any sense of them, as they were thrown out as merely brainstorming. But do feel free, if you decipher any link of logic, to comment upon any comments made.
-M.
Author: mdsnow
Date: Thu Jan 15 22:07
I think that Matt has brought up a very interesting point when he says that "Designers must become craftsmen, and get the ideas out there in the world."
In thinking of new ideas one has to go back to old ideas, or what has already been done, in order to produce ideas that are new. I remember when I began working on Sean's public service announcement project last semester. My subject was marital rape, not the easiest subject for a guy to do a public service announcement on, and I began thinking of posters I had seen that had dealt with similar subject matter.
The first images and posters I came up with were blatant and trite because of the fact that they had been done before. But from that point on in my process I was able to construct a public service announcement that felt brand new. As where my first ideas presented images of a dark poster with either a cracked stop sign or a woman hiding in the shadows my final idea materialized into small credit card sized cards, each one folded into three sections with a small peach colored dot in the upper right hand corner, (the small dot representing an isolated woman).
The cards also had some statistical information on marital rape and the word "talk"
beneath it. A stack of these cards would be placed in womens' bathrooms.
My final idea for the project was a much more appropriate and original result that I wouldn't have gotten to without having gone through a long, extended process of starting with ideas that had already been used.
Author: iffinch
Date: Fri Jan 16 0:37
Screen?
Print?
Since my background is in fine art, I’m used to throwing myself into paints, fumes, charcoals, stones...walking into a room, and completely submersing myself...literally, into my art....
When I became a graphic designer, print became my art. The canvas changed. This transition from canvas to screen was intimidating at first... but after some time and established comfort, I found myself slipping into an entirely new realm of art....
The change in mind set it has required and produced is phenomenal in my eyes. The resulting books, posters, etc. equally as phenomenal (though not always pleasing, but then again, neither were all my lithographs)
I no longer had a palette I could touch...my palette was on a screen, controlled by a mouse....But somehow, I found that I loved this too.
But with interactive media, web design, I am challenged once again. How do you take a flat screen, give it layers, depth, and aesthetic. when it stays on the screen?..How do you give a screen dimension, and engage an audience? How do you do this when what you have learned and what you know is something you can touch and feel...something that takes up physical space?
I have to learn how to create something in a virtual space. Now the art becomes the interaction of moving through this virtual space. So many questions, observations, and thoughts are popping up on this message board. The possibilities of interactive design are endless, and at times, being a fledgling multimedia designer myself, the concept sometimes is overwhelmingly daunting. The space is ENDLESS as are the possibilities. With a painting or a book, I can feel as if I have finished. It’s done...If I do any more, I’ve done too much. The virtual space the web offers gives you no endpoint. I had to grasp this notion, and get over the hugeness of it before I was able to actually make progress last semester when I first attempted to post my own site. And this took all semester. I didn’t know where to begin. There are no frames to end the canvas...you don’t run out of paint. Your dimensions may be limited to a screen of 15, 17, 21 inches but the levels and layers can expand your space infinitely. How can this NOT be intimidating? Only after attempting it on my own have I begun to realize the possibilities. And I agree with John’s statement earlier...90% of what is on the web isn’t for me either. Its no different than flipping through the 170 cable channels and having nothing to watch. When I approach interactive media, in whatever form, I want to be stimulated longer than 30 seconds. I want to see what happens next, I want to see what I can do to make it different every time. I want to learn.
I’m still a bit intimidated by it all, and this is precisely why I chose this studio. I’m ready to let that go.
Author: wdhall2
Date: Fri Jan 16 0:58
over the break, i was asked to speak at my old high school. i was asked to show what design is, what i have done, and answer any questions that they might have about design school. i tried to show a wide range of design examples. with every image, there was this feeling from the audience of "so what"..."what's next" etc. then i got to the motion stuff...immediately people were like "do that again"..."how did you do that"..."can i play with it" etc.
i reallized that our culture is producing relatively sophisticated viewers. in the discussion that followed my presentation, the depth of their observations was amazing. our generation understands images in motion. i believe that screen based interaction is the best/most appropriate medium to reach the most people on the deepest level because it is so engrained into our culture.
Author: iffinch
Date: Fri Jan 16 1:11
....similar experience.
I went to see "The Nutcracker" over Christmas break. Ballet and Dance Performances you wouldn't believe....
well, I did believe them. I wanted more. Boredom set in, and I was shocked and very much surprised. As a child, I loved the ballet. I remember watching Patricia O'Quinn pirouette and jump and thinking that it was absolutely amazing that a woman could do that.
Seeing it that night, I found myself waiting for that special effect to wake me up, make that ballerina fly through the air in true superhuman fashion....GIve me something more!...the sugar plum fairy isn't flashy enough!
I've become a part of THAT audience. I need more to stimulate me, keep me interested. I'm not sure when that happened.
[message was edited by iffinch on Fri Jan 16 1:15]
Author: erdeneve
Date: Fri Jan 16 12:52
i guess this would be a good point to give my opinion on interactivity. it may have already been said before - i can't remember theres too much to keep up with.
as far as interactivity goes, i don't think of it as print or "new media" related. its just an experience that you have the opportunity to participate in. however you can experince things without activley participating - you can experince the sensation of heat but you can't control it.
i used to love going to the ft. worth zoo with my grandmother when i was little. looking at all the animals was fabulous but my absolute FAVORITE part was the exhibit with the snakes. they taught you some of the differences between poisionous snakes and non-poisionous snakes and then there was this whole game where you had to identify then for yourself. Even though i was scared silly of the snakes, I loved it because I got to play a game.
i think its the same thing now, i don't mind looking at something thats beautiful and expericing it - i don't even find the need to be interactive with it. but its something thats not as visually exciting (like an ugly snake) i'll be attracted to it if theres something that i can interact with - something that will hold my attention and keep my from walking on.
which ties into that whole discussion on advertising. its so horribly NOT beautiful that advertisers have to make it pop up on your computer or make it in shiny lights -SOMETHING to keep your attention, even if its just the act of closing it. so yes, lets be graphic gurerillas and start a revolution of quality, beautiful advertising because its not going to go away.
but then again talk is SO cheap.
Topic: Web design on MACS?
Author: wdrichar
Date: Fri Jan 16 11:56
Ok so I discovered a problem this morning. I remember that when designing a website page, tables are less problematic than frames. PC's push them all over the place. I used tables and then tables within tables on my new portfolio site. I got on a PC, checked out my site, and tables were in the wrong places. Text was misplaced.
Here's my problem...I understand Macs are THE machine for graphics and print. I totally agree with that. However, they are also widely used in designing websites. The majority of those viewing the website are on PC's. I understand its sort of ridiculous to design print on Macs and have a separate computer (PC) for webdesign, but why hasn't something been done to make the design format for a Mac produce something almost exactly resemblant of a PC?
[message was edited by wdrichar on Fri Jan 16 12:05]
Author: erdeneve
Date: Fri Jan 16 12:22
yes, something must be done. I can barely figure out how to get my website to look right on a mac much less than a pc. i remeber showing my mom my website when i was at home and being horribly dissapointed when it came up on screen.
as of now, i woudn't even know what to do to fix it.
my dad also brought up something that weekend that made me realize how importnat designing for a pc. he does all the hiring for his architecture firm and while i don't plan on working for an architect, many other firm that we send our portfolios to will be looking a our sites on a pc.
while thats not at relevant as being able to design a fabulous website for the masses with a pc, its something i really need to figure out soon.
Author: mlblume
Date: Fri Jan 16 12:30
wes, were you using layers to determine where your tables were? simple tables should be almost completely the same when going from mac to pc. however, things within the tables themselves could alter the way they translate. layers, however, do not translate as well. it is rediculous that we are forced to know standards which will work on both platforms, however i do not know that they will ever be completely compatable. for now, the key is learning what characteristics and tools will translate nearly the same. color, well, you may as well give up on that (:
Author: mscourtn
Date: Fri Jan 16 17:45
I used to hate Macs. I've found that, after all, it is computers in general that I despise.
That aside, we still must decide which is the lesser evil, until man can design the perfect computer that does exactly as we want and won't piss us off...
Macs, I've decided, make internet shinier and more beautiful to view, at least. Although not everything will WORK on a mac, it will look purtier.
When designing ON a Mac, FOR a PC, I've found that hit and miss is the best answer so far. Tables are more stable from Mac to PC, than layers.
Also, you have to check every single aspect of layers to make them view correctly. If you notice, there is an option to decide the format of the layer, whether it is paragraph, none, etc... I've found that to keep a layer from bouncing ALL over, I had to select none to get it to fit my CSS styles I determined for that layer.
It's also not just Mac vs. PC. It's also Safari vs. IE vs. Netscape vs. Whatever-silly-web-browser-you-use...
Netscape views tables with silly borders. PC IE and Mac IE view differently, as well as Safari viewing slightly different as well, when it comes to subtle changes.
Text, for one, appears fluid and smooth on Macs. They look all jagged and crappy on PCs, as well as a greater color pallette and ( for what I've found) Macs are faster at viewing motion graphics too.
Working with tables or layers makes much better sites than using just Photoshop image slices. The drawbacks from that are slow loading and the fact that on a Mac it will look fine, and on a PC the slices might view all split up.
Computers have to be tricked into doing what you want them to do.
I should have been born a hundred years ago.
Topic: what is expected of new/interactive media?
Author: jmharri4
Date: Fri Jan 16 11:27
Hi all, incase you don’t recognize my unity name, I am Jon Harris. I don’t really know which names go with which faces so it is hard to imagine who is writing what and when names are referenced, which messages associate with that name. If everyone could do me a really big favor, please put your name in your message so I can begin to learn who you are.
First, I was extremely impressed with the type of critical discussion that is happening on this message board. Among the broad range of topics I have seen here have touched on almost every critical issue I have seen within current periodicals containing academic and critical essays about interactive media.
The aspects of and issues related to interactive media that I am most interested in (many, which I have already seen mentioned in this message board) are:
Who authors interactive media? Does lay access to the creative tools of interactive authorship degrade the field of interactive media by promulgating poor design? Will it be the same arguments, which took place with type during the digital revolution?
Why do people like Jacob Nielson exist, and are they interested in anything but money?
Are some of the design ideas that were afforded by the technology of the web interesting? Examples would be open source (mass collaboration, not just open source software), large collaborative spaces for design and research and the ability to have programs generate and interact with design (intelligent system, where digital rules programmed into the system determine how the system grows, programs like carnivore XE)?
Some ideas of Jessica Helfand I think are also very interesting and relative to this class. The ones I am interested in are “Multimedia has introduced a new visual language, one which is no longer bound to traditional definitions of word and image and form and place. Typography… must redefine its goals, its purpose, its very identity.”
Do you agree with that?
She also asks, “if graphic design can be largely characterized by its attention to understanding hierarchy of information, then how are we to determine its use in a nonlinear context.” And further questions “of what value are bold and italics when words can dance across the screen, dissolve, or disappear altogether.”
I think Jessica Helfand’s questions of multimedia are important to what we do and will be part of my investigations this semester.
These are other ideas that I have seen in this message board that I think are terrific ideas to think about. Jason brought up a great point earlier in another thread which was: when new technology is first conceived the first uses are to transfer the previous systematic uses to the newer technology. With time and use new and greater uses for the technology emerge and then expand the previous capabilities of the prior systems, pushing forward the entire field. I think it would be the goal of this class to try to find new ways that our current technology address graphic design, human interaction and lifestyles. How does it also change ideas of hierarchy, sequence, narrative, literacy and other aspects of graphic design, which were very relevant in previous technologies, not to say it isn’t currently relevant, or is it?
The final question that I have and have always been concerned with is, whether it is important for the designer to know, be able to use, and understand the technology they are working within? I have always moved back and forth on this question. I can’t strongly say one or the other. I think it is important because some new uses will only be discovered when knowing some of the more technical abilities afforded by the agency of programming languages. But then I also believe that good ideas can exist outside of understanding the technology, which might reform the technology to encompass this new use. I think both are valid arguments and are very curious to hear what others think.
Author: mlblume
Date: Fri Jan 16 12:51
i'm responding to your last question specifically, perhaps because it was the last thing i read. and btw, this is mia (:
i believe that there is somewhat of a fine, or even fuzzy, line of where a designer should understand the techonology. we are not trained, nor should we be expected, to understand the massive amounts of programming languages/scripting possibilities. that is where collaboration does make design the incredibly flexible and amazing field that it is today. i often find myself asking programmers and web developers (that specifically studied all the technologies that i do not know) if certain things can be done. if they say no, i believe it is our duty to ask why? why not. and perhaps use both of our minds to change, alter, enhance the technology that exists today.
however, i do believe that if one does lack any knowledge of technology, it makes understanding the vast possibilities a bit more difficult. some designers are also more interested in learning scripting and what not in order for their own exploration. i find it just as amusing as designing a poster. maybe that's just the geek in me, i don't know.
but back to the question, i do believe that there is a gray area inbetween that allows us to push the current technologies to a much greater level. i also feel that it is important to pull in other disciplines when we get to that point of grayness. without that combined effort, we can only make it so far.
Author: akwhitle
Date: Sun Jan 18 13:56
I am worried that the ultimate interactive would be like the Dance dance revolution game. But instead of techno, yoga and stretching will be the moves. The mat is more like Twister or a power pad. I, however, would love to make this. Everything I want to make seems more like a video game to emerse the audience. Will someone teach me how to make video games? And not just pac man.
Author: jmharri4
Date: Sun Jan 18 17:18
has anyone seen the eyetoy for sony playstation and or played with it? I have only tried it out for a few seconds at bestbuy and I thought it contained so much potential in the interactive realm. I didn't realize what a workout keeping your arms up in the air for about 10 minutes was as opposed to clicking a mouse. Does anyone think eyetoy could be used in interactive design, and or should be used?
Topic: is the computer just a tool?
Author: jmharri4
Date: Sat Jan 17 15:08
Hi all,
This is another topic I saw as a subthread of one of the posts. I was going to respond to it but now can’t find it. I also would like to know people’s opinions about this topic specifically.
Is the computer a tool, if it is not, can it become something greater than a tool, or is it greater than just a tool? I think it is greater than a tool. I don’t believe that an object that is just a tool can radically change our understanding of the world and communication, our lives and lifestyles and transform into nearly anything that it is not.
I think that certain programs are tools, while other software goes beyond what a tool can do. There is software that can seemingly make intelligent decisions, decisions that not even humans can make. This happens in the stock market, in medicine, in marketing and law to just name a few. Amazon has provided better recommendations for me than any one person I know.
I think the power of the computer lies in its ability to be able to transform into anything people want that is within financial marketability (would be cost effective to make). It isn’t just a word processor, it isn’t just a juke box, it isn’t just a photo editor, it isn’t just a web browser, it isn’t just a video editor, it isn’t just a communications tool, it isn’t just an entertainment center or games, toys and art, it is something different for everyone. You computer is to you how you use it. It is this great customizability and ability to transform that make it so powerful and seductive.
Author: jtgajown
Date: Sun Jan 18 13:19
I see what is being said here and I think some very valid points are made. My outlook on the issue of a computer being a tool is that I don't believe that we should assign our utmost level of faith to a machine. We tend to trust machines more than our peers. I think that there must remain a boundary between humans and machines with the understanding that although a machine may be able to make quicker more informed decisions than we can, it is not a living entity.
Author: fmcausby
Date: Mon Jan 19 15:54
To see how computers (and other modern media) have influenced our thinking and how we interact with our world is almost scary to me (i.e. caroline's comment on trying to ctrl-z when you make a stupid comment or spill a drink or something). Yes, computers are great as tools, but I believe they should be left at that. Technology is great, but there's always going to be value in old-fashioned interaction.
I've noticed that since I've started using a compuer everyday for checking email, doing school work, even taking classes, I've noticed how much more...rushed I am, I guess. I take less time with people and take less time to read a book. The habits we've devleoped from computers (these things that make things easier and quicker) have carried over to our our lives and I'm not really sure that that's a good thing.
There are some things (like Jon was talking about) that computers have been used for that have improved our lives such as diagnosing diseases such. That stuff's great, definitely. Maybe it's just personal computers that we use all of our waking hours that I have a problem with.
I might just be afraid of change, I don't know, but there's something to be said for writing out a paper by hand or taking real 35mm photos. For me (and for many others) some of my best design has been off the computer.
Topic: SCREEN V. PAGE
Author: jtgajown
Date: Wed Jan 14 18:16
I have a tendency to look at the screen as a filter of information. Given its established dimensions and the understanding that it is capable only of replicating dimensional space, I see the elements within the screen as being controlled by those defining factors. There are pages and interfaces below the one I am currently typing on. My screen has made them inactive to me even though they are still very much there. They often remain unrelated to each other because although the screen is our portal to these pages it does not group as say a book does. The book then becomes a more controlled experience simply because it has been curated that way. Which leads inevitably to interactivity. Although flipping through a book is the ultimate tangible interactive action (because it is not a representation of an action but an action itself) , I am beginning to believe that the screen affords more interactivity but in the virtual sens of course. Interactivity then, I contend, is relative
Author: fmcausby
Date: Thu Jan 15 12:01
Good call. Not only do we have varying degrees of interactivity, as Tony mentioned, we also have differing kinds of interactivity: virtual, actual, intentional, unintentional, etc.
Author: jfhyland
Date: Thu Jan 15 14:56
anna's comment on blade runner — the eye is the mirror of the soul, therefore what one sees looking into the eye of a replicant is puzzling — relates to our conversation about "what is the screen?".
it is strange to gaze into a cycloptic eye that has no soul, the computer monitor, all the day long. i wonder what it does to us. do we become more and more like the world we navigate through our monitor? of course. what we do on a computer, in some ways, mirrors what is inside of us. Even the word "monitor" speaks volumes. Who is monitoring? Who is being monitored? I know I'm bending meanings, but in some ways the mechanism we use to see, is also a mechanism that allows us to be seen. I think of the cyclops HAL in 2001. A device meant to see for humans, in the end turns its eye towards humans.
And, speaking of the history of single eyes, what about that masonic thing on the back of the buck, or the cbs logo? again, who is being seen?
So, there is still the question — what happens when we look inside a screen? We become a giant eyeball, for one, with little cold fingers. an interactive designer faces the challenge perhaps, of reattatching this giant eyeball to the body: content, experience, depth, the soul. the way this might be done is to address the different ways we experience space: symbolically, experientially and abstractly (learning from las vegas). the space on the web, in the computer, clearly needs to improve as an experience, while not ignoring the economy of symbolic language, nor letting us forget exactly where we are on the cognitive map.
Author: mdsnow
Date: Thu Jan 15 18:06
Some interesting comments have been brought up about the screen and how it functions as a filter of information. I personally have always seen the computer screen as an entrance to a knowledge based maze containing multiple endless passages. Because of the fact that navigating through such a maze is less a physical action rather than say, flipping through a book, I've always been a bit hesitant about delving into deep digital navigation.
Over the past year or so I've learned that the interactive possibilities that the screen provides its viewer are much too great to condone and that by being able to use the screen as a means of interaction, I become part of a "community" progressing another great means of interactivity towards its next level.
Author: mscourtn
Date: Thu Jan 15 18:17
Boy, Plato would cringe at the depth of some of these thinkings. Philosophy in graphic design? Can there be such a science?
Getting deep there. Good comments, Jon & Josh, I want to place that copy in a graphic design bible.
A Mission Statement, Jerry Maguire.
Author: mlblume
Date: Thu Jan 15 21:01
well everyone is talking about their experience with their screen. what happens when what we consider a "monitor" disappears and no longer do we have a defined box around the maze of data and information? where then do we understand what is inside and out? will this confuse our understanding of virtual vs real? will technology take us to the point of not being able to define the difference?
Author: : ) !
Date: Thu Jan 15 21:55
MJ (The King of Pop) used a bit of medical tech -- created a virtual self -- i can tell the diff
Author: djtoth
Date: Fri Jan 16 9:19
I was reading the text 'Body of a Book" in Design Writing research last night and was struck by the parallels between what the author is expressing and our recent conversation regarding screen v. page (mostly in regards to interaction, but. . .)
The idea begins quite simply. Objects that we use as tools to perform other tasks: cameras, gloves, a pencil, a ball mitt, are all forms of extensions of our bodies, turning them inside out. They (the objects themselves) are not seen as discontinous, but as a continuous part of our body, like an internal organ.
It then moves into a discussion regarding writing, which is seen not as something that is separate and apart from speech, but supplemental and permanent. It also notes that writing then becomes an extension of the person, leaving behind a by-product, or something that is left and then regenerated again, or eliminated and then produced again.
I think what is interesting about this type of thinking is that our fascination with the screen is not so much in the screen itself as a physical object, but as an organ of the body. The screen ultimately becomes a surface that is an extension of ourselves. The keyboard and mouse serving similar roles as extensions, organs WITHIN the body, rather than manipulative tools which are disconnected on the periphery.
This type of thinking might begin to address our topic of interactivity and the fascination thereof with the screen. Here is an excerpt that further illustrates the point:
"Whereas the body of a text is typically assigned to a single author, notes, glosses, figures, and appendices are organs for importing material from the outside, for exchanging discourse with other documents. Such organs nourish, impregnate, and sometimes deface, infect, the internal body."
"The valves of the organs serve no only to absorb, but also to expel, excrete. They generate substances, leaving a mark, a trail of argument in excess of the seemingly self-contained body of the work. The organs of the text are sites for elaboration, expansion, overlfow, like the body's periodic release of semen or blood. "
I have often viewed the laptop, screen, mouse, and keyboard as objects (vehicles) which are tools for my desired goal of obtaining and sending information. However, maybe our fascination with the screen and interactivity is a result of viewing them as extensions of ourselves. Organs of our own body, linked to our bloodstream, allowing us to have exchange and interactive moments with someone else who we cannot see. If this is the case, and the screen is an extension, the person with whom you are communicating then becomes an extension of yourself as well. (maybe that is stretching it, but it is worth thinking about. I am attempting to grapple with the idea that we are in many ways, more fascinated with screen based communication )
The other reason this argument makes sense is that if we view the keyboard and mouse as extensions of ourselves (organs), rather than tools, we are intrinsically going to feel like the choices we make while on a computer are not separated from our bodies. Clicking a mouse button or tapping a keyboard are not simply physical chores in which we participate. They become more personal, more internal, because we associate them with being part of us, not removed from us.
Why do we gravitate towards sites that allow for exploration and interaction? Our general response is user "control." Giving the user control may be a part of it, but I would argue that the "control" one feels is really more about giving the user the ability to extend oneself in an environment where they feel internally linked. If the screen is an internal organ, specific to the user, then the feedback they receive from clicking a mouse button is like your body telling you "I am hungry" after seeing a wonderfully delicious, hot, Krispy Kreme doughnut on a table. The feedback then becomes more than just a visual clue or result, but an internal response/communication between the senses of one's body.
Maybe I'm totally off my rocker, or maybe you think I have had one too many coffees (I am on my fourth cup), but I think this makes a lot of sense when thinking about why we have become so fascinated with the screen. The only drawback is that I need to think of this theory in terms of other exercises which we have noted: reading a book, playing outside, etc. Anyway, if you hated reading this and want to tell me to shut-up, that type of feedback is appreciated too. In light of this discourse, I guess I might look at that feedback, as my body telling me my hand in pain because it is too close to the fire. Thanks.
Author: cking
Date: Fri Jan 16 11:45
its cool that jason mentioned Design Writing Research! what an awesome book! I feel like it is correlating with sooo many things in my life right now.
would we want our bodies to become more in contact with computers in the future? As Jason mentioned, the mouse is already a sort of organ, and punching keys becomes as secondary as breathing (sometimes i even want to do "control z" when i say something irrelevant). but what if nothing seperated us from the tehnological world?
I saw a sign somewhere about "donating your old computers to the needy." This is what is has become. Computers are of course important tools to us as designers, but now everyone kind of needs one unless they want to be left in the technological dust. (and the dust will not settle soon).
Author: fmcausby
Date: Fri Jan 16 11:46
That's weird cuz as I was reading Jon's message, I was think the same thing that Mia was, I think. Good comments from Jason, too. I think it's really cool how we can push the envelope in these message boards. I don't think you're crazy, I promise.
But to comment on what Jon and Mia said: I was looking at some of John Maeda's calendars that he has designed on his site. It's one of those things that follows your cursor around and does cool stuff. With this case, (and I've never really thought of this) the computer is interacting with you rather than vice versa. It's following you around and doing things when you click.
Anyway, to make my point, I was wondering when the interactivity from the web is going to spill out of the monitor (like Mia, I think). To some degree, I imagine that it has with haptics and such, but when are we going to actually interact with computers in the real world and not the virtual world?
All of our interactions on screen are virtual interactions. There is no matter or physical thing that we are interacting with on screen. All the buttons, pages, scrollbars, words, and pictures aren't really even there. They're virtual.
Mia's question I guess, is the same one that I'm asking: will our technology ever get to the point where we confuse reality and virtual reality?
I thought Gollum was real til I watched the DVD bonus features.
Author: jmharri4
Date: Fri Jan 16 12:30
Do you guys think that work such as the wooden mirror and the work of golan levin and his hidden worlds of niose and voice are examples of digital design or art moving off the screen? If so are they good examples or should it take a different direction?
Author: jmharri4
Date: Fri Jan 16 12:31
sorry, the link for the wooden mirror didn't come out here it is
http://fargo.itp.tsoa.nyu.edu/~danny/mirror.html
Author: erdeneve
Date: Fri Jan 16 13:11
in response to the discussion about the screen becoming more of a screen and losing its periphery:
its kind of a scary thought. i LIKE having an edge to my monitor because after being immersed in it for so long, i have a constant reminder that its not all-encompasing. the computer is NOT my life.
i've got a sketchbook and i go outside and i don't think i could stand it if the screen was more far-reaching than it is. yes i apprecaiate this virtual world, i like being able to talk with friends across the country or across an ocean, i like the immediacy of everything having to do with computers. but i love the seperation. i love the feeling of finally getting offt the computer, taking of my headphones and going home.
so while screen-based media allows you to imerse yourself in it probably more than print, i think print has so many more advantages. i can think a lot better when i have the space to step back and reflect - something i don't really ever do when i'm on my computer. if iwas writing this response by hand, im sure it would be more coherant. Perhaps i'm different than a lot of people in that way. I try not to see a computer as an extension of my body, but as a tool and i like it that way.
Author: wdrichar
Date: Fri Jan 16 13:17
I read where a man (sorry I don't remember his name) wrote a program that made a song become animated into series of lines on a computer screen. He then sat a radio in front of the screen and set it on a certain frequency. This was the same frequency setting he used for the animation program. Just from the lines being animated on the screen, the radio amazingly picked up the frequency from the screen and played the song from which the lines that were being animated. The process could also be reversed. The CIA uses this technology to spot terror threats. A computer recognizes certain lines similar to "kill the president" and animates that frequency on a screen to maybe reveal the location of that vocal pattern.
This is interesting because the screen not only gives us a virtual space to explore, but because of the way things are arranged within it, it makes us feel a certain way. Maybe it doesn't automatically play a song in our head, but it invokes a certain response.
[message was edited by wdrichar on Fri Jan 16 13:18]
Author: jtgajown
Date: Fri Jan 16 13:20
Erin, some wonderful comments. I very muich like the coment at the end about the computer as a tool. We need to understand that we are not computers.
Author: akwhitle
Date: Mon Jan 19 19:08
I am proud to say, I've never once thought I am a computer.
Topic: question
Author: cking
Date: Mon Jan 19 21:05
can anyone direct me (or tell me what it is called) as to how to change, say a pic, on a link each time it is visited? I have my trusty manual with me, but I wasn't exactly sure what this action is called.
thanks dudes
Topic: so i dreamed about studio...
Author: cking
Date: Sat Jan 17 12:39
Last night I had this recurring dream about a webpage. It was a nice open white page with a canary yellow horizontal rectangle, roughly 3.5 inches in length. Underneath the rectangle, there was changing script that said " yellow makes me feel..." I had designed it in my dream, and my logic behind it was to express the many ways words can be interpreted just by the typeface chosen. I chose a yellow rectangle because yellow can be soothing (flowers, nature) and alarming (road signs, school buses), depending on what surrounds it and waht it is applied to. And the thing with the type was that - its kind of like you can say to you dog, or cat in a nice sweet voice "you are the worst pet i have ever owned" and it would regard it as something affectionate. -So, i had the phrase "yellow makes me feel..." in agitating and calming typefaces, and it was somehow supposed to record the differences in the viewers reactions.
just think of this dream....all night, over and over again.
not sure exactly what this means, but i thought it was pretty funny.
[message was edited by cking on Sat Jan 17 12:44]
Author: akwhitle
Date: Sat Jan 17 14:46
So, the handy dandy dream book has something else to say:
Colors: yellow forecasts setbacks and struggles before improvement can be achieved
Writing: if you dreamed of reading hand writing, it is a warning of deception within the circle of those you trust; if you were doing the writing, the dream is telling you that you are creating problems for yourself though impulsive behavior; think before you act.
Square: eventual success and security will be yours if your dream featured anything in this form
Author: : ) !
Date: Sat Jan 17 17:21
insert sound effect of Pac Man being caught by Inky
{------ --- - -, - - }
Author: cking
Date: Mon Jan 19 14:07
should i have said "dreampt?"
i think that is the only word in the english language that ends in -mpt.
Author: akwhitle
Date: Mon Jan 19 15:15
contempt
Author: mscourtn
Date: Tue Jan 20 1:31
exempt
Topic: inspiration
Author: kttran
Date: Wed Jan 28 0:46
Wow. Watch the movie and look at the pictures!!!!
http://www.hektor.ch
...the end of this thread.
