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

["Kanarinka" <kanarinka@ikatun.com>]

I agree that the "which end user" issue cannot be solved unless you are
doing extensive demographic research on your artwork (yuk). Even then,
people designing software systems can never fully know the expectations
and actions of their end users. (I'm sure Microsoft has done lots of
usability testing but I still find it incredibly *&^*&ing annoying to
deal with images in Word docs)

My point earlier was that usability and interaction are different things
entirely. Usability is administrative and necessary, interaction design
is creative and necessary.

I think "form" in software/net design includes and is defined by the
structure of the interaction which is in turn defined by focusing on
why/how the user is going to approach, play, deal with, experience the
software in the first place. 

Form, in any given medium, stems from the formal properties of that
medium. In 2D mediums you speak of form in terms of color, composition,
texture, etc.

The most distinguishing formal property of software from other mediums
is that it allows for interaction, that it is rule-based, that it allows
the creation of a participatory, experiential environment, however you
wanna say it.

So form in software can also apply to the composition of the visuals on
the screen and to the structure of any audio, etc., included in the
piece, but in a software-driven artwork I would argue that the primary
formal areas that one has to deal with are in the design of the rules
for interaction...

...and really that comes down to thinking about the person at the end of
the line who will be experiencing the work...







-----Original Message-----
From: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] On Behalf
Of John Klima
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 12:34 PM
To: Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]
Cc: nettime-l@BBS.THING.NET; nettime@BBS.THING.NET; list@rhizome.org
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: GENERATION FLASH: Usability/Interaction



thinking about the end user has never been a *requirement* of art. and
once you start thinking about the end user you get into all those
difficult areas like "which end user."  You start thinking about
usability and not necessarily, form.  usability goes farther than "easy"
and "hard." some game interfaces are hard by design. but there is a
purpose there, to create a game. 

what then is the purpose of interface within a work of art?
j



"Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]" wrote:
> 
> > [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@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@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] On
Behalf
> > Of napier
> > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 1:35 PM
> > To: John Klima
> > Cc: Lev Manovich; nettime-l@BBS.THING.NET; nettime@BBS.THING.NET;
> > list@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@potatoland.org
> >
> > + Now Entering: The Devil's Domain
> > -> Rhizome.org
> > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > -> questions: info@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@rhizome.org
> > -> questions: info@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/
> + Now Entering: The Devil's Domain
> -> Rhizome.org
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@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@rhizome.org
-> questions: info@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

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