| Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist] on Thu, 2 May 2002 23:12:27 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| <nettime> Re: RHIZOME_RAW: GENERATION FLASH: Usability/Interaction |
The forces of nature, market, whatever you want to call it will determine the outcome of this debate. The vast majority of people are not original with regard to the creation of knowledge, thus they will express themselves within models that have proven successful for others in the past. Success will be defined by most name recognition (either common or critical) and/or reputation of financial well being. Such success will require accessability by a sufficient audience to create a critical mass. If you wish to create with limited accessability, you need the few who access it to be of extreme importance and power within the limited sphere you wish to be defined successful. These important few will probably dictate more stringently than any mass consumer base would ever acheive. It is your pick of poison, if you are of a negative bent of mind, you might describe it as choosing which ass to kiss. When bemoaning the lack in a common public, I am reminded of statements by elite public personnas. Recent example, Bloomberg, when queried about placement of garbage incinerators in poor neighborhoods, described the inhabitants as "people who have just started the economic climb up the ladder" As if they would reach the first rung. Perhaps we should be aware when we defend inaccessability in art, the "I don't care" attitude, of how much we resemble Bloomberg and his description of poor people. -- Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist] Take the Survey everyone is talking about... http://www.electrichands.com/genius2000 Electric Hands, Inc www.electrichands.com 212-255-4527 Quoting John Klima <klima@echonyc.com>: > > i don't suppose you can truely avoid it. but if the goal is a "form of > function" there will be a vast sector of the mouse operating public who > will be left completely in the dark by what results. as you say > yourself, you had no idea how to interact. i'm thinking that's exactly > how it should be, the point is step up and try to figure it out. many > many many people will refuse to accept this challenge, like my example > of the pissed off clicker. people expect instructions when encountering > an interface, or they expect it to function more or less like an > e-commerce site. what "they" don't want is to be challenged, so fuck 'em > all together! hehe > > j > > Orangerobot wrote: > > > > I don't see how you can avoid thinking about the user when making an > > interactive art piece. You might as well put the machine behind one of > those > > little white tape lines and park a security guard next to it to bark at > > people when they try to touch it. Without the user it's not interactive. > > It's a sculptural video piece. It's installation art. > > > > I must admit most interactive/digital artworks I've encountered in > > exhibitions have had two main problems: 1. the computer was broken, > frozen, > > on the fritz. 2. i had no idea how i was supposed to interact with the > > exhibit. > > > > robot > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "John Klima" <klima@echonyc.com> > > To: "Kanarinka" <kanarinka@ikatun.com> > > Cc: "'Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]'" > > <joseph@electrichands.com>; <nettime-l@BBS.THING.NET>; > > <nettime@BBS.THING.NET>; <list@rhizome.org> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 1:48 PM > > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: GENERATION FLASH: Usability/Interaction > > > > > > > > all good points but i just don't want to *have* think about the end > > > user, and i don't want a work to be assesed in terms of how well it > > > accomodates them. > > > j > > > > > > > > > Kanarinka wrote: > > > > > > > > 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 > > > + 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 > + 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/ # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net