www.nettime.org
Nettime mailing list archives

[Nettime-bold] RE: RHIZOME_RAW: GENERATION FLASH: Usability/Interaction
Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist] on Mon, 29 Apr 2002 22:46:02 +0200 (CEST)


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[Nettime-bold] RE: RHIZOME_RAW: GENERATION FLASH: Usability/Interaction


> [and ways that, by absolute necessity and contrary to what goes on most
> of the time even now, incorporate thought about the "end-user" right at
> the beginning of the creative process]

Yes, from the very start of a project, you start thinking about the end-
user...because you allow yourself to access and interact with it...otherwise 
you could not complete it.   It would be even better to make access more 
elegent from the beginning, build layers of accessability as you build the 
piece.  Creating textures that people can "feel" their way through. 

-- 
Joseph Franklyn McElroy 
Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]
Electric Hands, Inc
www.electrichands.com
212-255-4527
Electrify your sales, Electrify your Mind


Quoting Kanarinka <kanarinka {AT} ikatun.com>:

> hi folks,
> I really like the focus on interaction here. I think that this is one of
> the keys to understanding the medium that we are trafficking in. Let's
> keep up the dialogue.
> 
> On the "ease of use" tip ::: a note
> 
> I think all too often people (artists, software programmers, audience,
> users all included) confuse "usability" with "interaction". Usability
> has to do with how accessible and "easy to use" your work is. Usability
> answers questions like: Can it be viewed on multiple browsers,
> platforms, etc.? Is it confusing in unintended ways? This is
> "user-centered" thinking only in the sense that you are trying to make
> sure that your user does not have unintended hardware/software/cognitive
> problems accessing your work. To give an example -- If your work were a
> building, usability would be like making sure that your doorways were
> designed so that people fat and thin, wheelchairs and not, etc. could
> all make it around inside. 
> 
> Designing for usability is important but designing for interaction is
> much more interesting. 
> 
> Interaction design answers questions like "Why do users want to do
> something with my work? How can users enter into a meaningful, engaging
> performative space with this work? What is the incentive towards action
> in this case?" To go back to the building metaphor  -- interaction in
> that case would be - why do you want to visit the building in the first
> place? what happens to you inside the building? what kind of experience
> do you have inside the building? how are you changed after leaving the
> building? 
> 
> interaction design poses questions and problems much larger and more
> creatively charged than just "how can we make this thing user-friendly?"
> the most effective net/software/digital/artronics art of this new age
> will be able to answer these questions and solve these problems in
> interesting, challenging, meaningful ways. 
> 
> [and ways that, by absolute necessity and contrary to what goes on most
> of the time even now, incorporate thought about the "end-user" right at
> the beginning of the creative process]
> 
> cheers, kanarinka
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-list {AT} rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list {AT} rhizome.org] On Behalf
> Of napier
> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 1:35 PM
> To: John Klima
> Cc: Lev Manovich; nettime-l {AT} BBS.THING.NET; nettime {AT} BBS.THING.NET;
> list {AT} rhizome.org
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: GENERATION FLASH: Lev / Sawad
> 
> 
> At 12:22 PM 4/29/2002 -0400, John Klima wrote:
> 
> >when discussing artwork, soft or not, the focus is naturally on the
> >appearance of the thing. its the first thing you encounter when you
> >"see" it. it's how it looks that makes the first impression regardless
> >of the function.
> 
> First impressions are surely based on the visual, but lasting
> impressions 
> are based on the overall experience of the piece, the impact it has 
> intellectually, the gut feel that it creates.  If we talk only about 
> appearance we'll miss the point of most art of the past 50-100 years.
> 
> >the public expects "ease of use" as the most critical element in
> >software interaction, ....
> >.... but where in the
> >museum catalogues and art reviews do those words appear? never.
> 
> Because the concept of "usage" does not exist in art prior to 
> software.  The "use" of a painting is that you hang it and look at it.
> Not 
> much to talk about there.  Software doesn't have to be "easy" to 
> use.  jodi's site is deliberately difficult to navigate, yet it can be 
> navigated, and figuring out how to get around and where things are is
> part 
> of the experience.  Also in mouse-responsive work like turux.org, the
> mouse 
> motion drives what happens on screen, but not in an obvious or linear 
> way.  The screen often responds surprisingly to the mouse motion, which
> is 
> more interesting than a simple 1 to 1 mapping of mouse motion to graphic
> 
> motion.
> 
> >  how can
> >one ever discuss interaction when not all people agree what is left and
> >what is right? this is certainly an exageration of the problem, but it
> >highlights the situation that not all users are equally capable of
> >interaction. hell, some people are in wheelchairs and can't reach the
> >mouse
> 
> And some people are blind and can't look at visual art.  That doesn't
> stop 
> the discussion of visual aesthetics.
> 
> >  the primary element of software art
> >still firmly resides in what is displayed on the screen, and second how
> >it got there, and third, how a viewer interacts with it. however, i do
> >firmly believe that the best work includes all three.
> 
> Right.  And given that we're talking about software art here, and we're
> not 
> too handicapped to experience the art on all three levels, I think it's 
> worth talking about all three.
> 
> mark
> 
> napier {AT} potatoland.org
> 
> + Now Entering: The Devil's Domain
> -> Rhizome.org
> -> post: list {AT} rhizome.org
> -> questions: info {AT} rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php3
> 
> + Now Entering: The Devil's Domain
> -> Rhizome.org
> -> post: list {AT} rhizome.org
> -> questions: info {AT} rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php3
> 


-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/

_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold {AT} nettime.org
http://amsterdam.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold