9.8.11 - Response to Laurel and Jenkins

Laurel:  Computers as Theatre

Imagination.  That’s what seems to sum it up.  To successfully understand the human-computer relationship, since the word interface apparently fails to accomplish this, imagination seems to be the key.  In noting that computer software is a collaboration of the creator’s imagination with that of the user’s imagination, Laurel finds a way to connect the human-computer experience to reality.  The use of Kay’s observation sums up the role of how imagination bridges the gap that an interface would in a human-computer relationship. 

“It is not a tool, although it can act like many tools.  It is the first metamedium, and as such it has degrees of freedom for representation and expression never before encountered and as yet barely investigated” (32).

Using the imagination as a bridge to our reality allows for that pleasurable, memorable experience that Laurel is pointing out.  I sense, too, that Kolko would appreciate this line of thought.

I was not surprised that the first computer game, Spacewar, was a representation of action that allowed for human participation.  It understood the need to represent action and is appropriate to lead into the theatre metaphor for understanding the human-computer relationship.  But how did we get to the point where we needed to use theatre as a metaphor to explain the human-computer experience?  Spacewar got it right by representing action.  Had interface design continued along that path, we would not have this problem today.  Laurel uses Norman’s “point that the design of an effective interface—whether for a computer or a doorknob—must begin with an analysis of what a person is trying to do, rather than...a notion of what the screen should display” (7) to explain how interfaces should be designed.  I feel this comes back to use of the imagination again.  Imagination allows one to analyze what a person is doing, not just trying to represent it on a screen.  Imagination allows one to design so that reality and action are well represented. 

I wonder at what point the need to represent action was lost.  Spacewar got it right, so where did things go wrong in the development of interfaces?  As Norman points out, some designs began to design based on what the screen should show.  That’s a problem.  It’s starting too small and limiting future growth, improvement, and continued evaluation.  The working definition of interface that Laurel includes furthers this point.  Laurel even notes that the difficulty in defining interface proves that “we are barking up the wrong tree” (14).  Kolko would most likely blame this on failure to incorporate a user experience team into the company’s hierarchical structure.  That or only allowing them to work on the project at the very end once the screen display has been designed and the user experience team is allowed to, perhaps, change the color or font.  So since we are barking up the wrong tree, we need band aids such as Laurel’s theatre metaphor and Kolko’s interaction design process to fix our confusion as it relates to the human-computer experience.

Henry Jenkins:  Convergence Culture

I feel that Jenkins’ Black Box Fallacy is key in understanding media convergence.  Noting the differentiation between media and delivery systems can change how you approach convergence entirely.  If I’m only worried about the changing technologies, I forget about the possibilities of media itself.  The belief that everything will one day run through a black box is a distraction to being aware of how I can use the actual media.  History shows that media has adapted to technological changes.  It's safe to assume that media will continue along this same path.  Understanding how we are currently living within a culture of media convergence is the here and now.  Jenkins notes, “Convergence involves both a change in the way media is produced and a change in the way media is consumed” (16).  Being aware of this will allow for optimal production and consumption practices.

Collective intelligence seems like something that businesses should be trying to harness if they aren’t already.  It’s great buzz and doesn’t require them to expend costs on marketing to draw in a fan base.  Collective intelligence, however, doesn’t allow for corporate control and should be seen as a double-edged sword.  It does generate buzz but can also lash out against the corporation.  Jenkins does well in describing spoiling as an adversarial process.  It seems that spoiling was one of the key factors in bringing an end to Survivor.  The conspiracy theory that ChillOne was, in fact, the producer or someone inside the show started to hurt the series and probably caused it to end sooner than it would have otherwise.  The lesson from this case study seems to be that even if businesses aren’t trying to harness collective intelligence, they should at least be aware of it and have plans in place to address its effects.  Falling back on Walsh's "expert paradigm" is no longer an option.