Frankly, I was thinking why Dr. Howard let us read Laurel's article which was published in 1993. It seemed be kind of a very initial version that treats "human-computer interaction (HCI)." I mean we could read more recent articles because this area has increasingly changed and updated. While reading it, however, I was impressed by the author's insight about interface design. Specially, it is very predictable that "a scene design is not a whole play - for that we also need representations of character and action (10)." It reminds me "presence," that is a theoretical concept describing the effect that people expereince when they interact with a computer-mediated or computer-generated environment (Sheridan, 1994, from wiki).
In this chapter, the author entirely talks about how theatrical elements and theories apply to designing interactions between human and computer. All actions related to computer-interactions is represented by people. The human is an indispensable ingredient of the representation (2). In real, it is human who is the subject doing something like writing, painting, and editing in interaction with computer. But, I do not think this is sort of interactive behaviors. If there is absolutely a mutual interaction between human and computer, and that is a part where HCI (or interactive design) is studied, we need to know certain models of iteraction (or communication), one of which is "the notion of common ground described by Herbert H. Clark and Susan E. Brennan (1990) (3)." Simply put, the model means that purposive interactivities are achieved based upon common ground and accumulation. The notion of common ground not only provides a superior representation of the conversational process but also supports the idea that an interface is not simply the means whereby a person and a computer represent themselves to one another (4).
Probably, interaction based on common ground!
This concept is from human-to-human coversation, so called, speech communication. I came up with "feedback,"one of concepts in communication theories when I read common ground. In communication, feedback has been a vital idea breaking limitation of linear communication. In this point of view, I thought there must be also "feedback" in interaction between human and computer because it is reciprocal. Then, what would be "feedback" there? Probably, the feedback is like echo in HCI. Think about how we use our computer. Interactions with computer are physically mediated by the monitor screen, but, as mentioned above, an individual oneself perform all things as a subject; to turn on and off a computer, run software, and organzie files. This looks like not mutual but one-way actions. If we interact with computer and receive somthing like a message from it, then the message-like comes from our actions, not computer itself. When it comes to "represntation," who feels the things represented? It is, after all, by the users who represent them. Laurel states that "you either feel yourself to be participating in the ongoing action of the prepresentation or you don't (20-21)," suggesting additional rudimentary measure of interactivity. Users themselves are engaged in their behaviors on computer That is why I mentioned that feedback is like echo here. Interface itself does not explain anything. When a user is mediated via the interface, it does have any meaning.
The analogy adapting theatrical view to human-computer activity looks so sharp. However, we should not forget that we deal with digital content, not analogue. Undoubtedly, there is a huge distinction. I understand what the author tried to say trhough theatrical perspective as an interface metaphor but we have to consider differences between digital and analogue.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your insight, Taerhim. I find it interesting that you shift your focus towards meaning in interface. What I think we're now approaching is a "tail/dog, dog/tail" relationship. I'll explain...
ReplyDeleteNote that, early, Laurel comments that the "interesting potential" of computing lay in its representative capacity (para. 2). We face a need to, as Laurel notes, to find common ground between user (which could be either player or audience, to employ an artistic metaphor) and designer...a space where the restrictions and potentialities created by the designer align with natural expectancies of the user (see Laurel 4 for an interesting illustration). I may be alone in this capacity, but I like the "process of interaction" notion put forth (4) to discuss this metaphor.
What does this mean to us? All conversations are managed by conventions. These conventions are codified, either as etiquette (such as GLEN PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK) or perhaps click path (the things I have to "press," which is itself a metaphor for computing input). Each can be meaningful...if they align with needs (in a rhetorical situation, of sorts).
Good post - I like your direction!
I think the dramatistic model works better for humanist paradigms than others, though I did like Laurel's conception of the computer as actor/agent--a view other humanists might not be able to accept or reciprocate.
ReplyDeleteAnd though it would be difficult not to presume some sort of foundational ground for an artistic act like the Anderson and Roe piano piece, I tend to distance myself from and/or doubt the presence of stability inherent in works I consider to be art. Of course, one would be naive to doubt that those common grounds didn't exist, and that they are often even deliberately produced. But I always hope that there is an experiential mode to artistic creation (as Laurel might say), as well as instrumental.
Great observations Taerhim. I have a question and a comment.
ReplyDeleteMy question is really for anyone on this thread thus far. I'm think I'm confused about what common ground entails. What are we talking about with 'common ground'? I read this as the interface itself. When I think of common goal in human communication, I think of shared goals and values. Maybe I just need to re-read the Laurel piece.
My comment addresses your idea of feedback. I agree that on my day to day computer use, I receive very little 'feedback' from my computer. However, think of a programer. When coding a page, most people will toggle back and forth from making changes to viewing the change. You change some code, view the page, change the code, view the page, and continue doing so. In that way, the process of coding a page does feel like getting feedback loop from the computer. It's like talking back and forth between human computer.
I also think the concept of "common ground" is applied to develop interfaces between humans and computers.
ReplyDeleteAnd, What I wanted to say about "feedback" on HCI is that it is like one-way interaction. The beginnig of the interaction is always by human, not a computer. That is, if one does not start it, there is no feedback. We might interact with computer but it's up to human. What if a computer first talks to me?