<nettime> full of having to think about usability digest [young/hwang/svensk]

["nettime's_digestive_system" <nettime@bbs.thing.net>]

Daniel Young <danny@miltonglaser.com>
     Re: <nettime> full of digital hot air
Francis Hwang <sera@fhwang.net>
     <nettime> Having to think about interface
fredriksvensk@netscape.net
     Re: GENERATION FLASH: Usability/Interaction

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 09:47:17 -0400
Subject: Re: <nettime> full of digital hot air
From: Daniel Young <danny@miltonglaser.com>

I agree with Dimtris about the lack of discussion of the work. Where is the
talk about specific works of net art? Where are the critics and philosophers
of the new art form? But I don't agree with his prediction of a short
life-cycle for this new form. I expect NewZoid, my first work in this field,
to last at least as long as the Parthenon (if it is properly maintained.)
Daniel Young

on 5/1/02 9:02 PM, Dimitris C.Milionis at milioni@otenet.gr wrote:

> Every one on this list that post
> talks about the tools of there craft (software, flash etc,etc.)
> but nobody talks about each others work of art
 <...>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 11:43:13 -0400
From: Francis Hwang <sera@fhwang.net>
Subject: <nettime> Having to think about interface

Christopher Fahey wrote:

>(3) CHALLENGING THE USER: As Joseph pointed out, "ease of use" is often
>deliberately thwarted in computer games. Interactivity as an art form
>(and as a new kind of creative human experience) would be terribly
>boring if everything were easy or obvious. A game that tells you how
>everything works is an insult to the player's intelligence.

I beg to differ. Although we can perhaps draw an exception for 
artwork, users of software aren't using software for the joy of using 
software; they're using it to accomplish a specific task. Maybe 
they're ordering plane tickets or looking up movie times. Maybe they 
want to get press information about a company. Maybe they want to 
play a game. They certainly don't want to think a lot about interface.

This applies to games as well as everything else. All the best games 
have highly specialized but nonetheless well-crafted, intuitive 
interfaces. A good game is not one where people post on bulletin 
boards asking questions about the interface. They ask questions about 
the domain: "The Brogan Raiders keep coming over the castle walls, 
and I don't have enough Barbarians to defend! What do I do?"

What's curious is that even though games do usually require a highly 
customized interface, they still end up using many of the same 
concepts that you'll get in, say, Microsoft Excel. How do you select 
multiple units in Starcraft? Click-and-drag til your select rectangle 
is over everything you want selected, just like on the Macintosh 
desktop.

>Josh Davis said, in one of his many famous tirades against usability
>guru Jakob Nielsen, that we shouldn't treat users like idiots. That's a
>good rule of thumb in any context.

Jakob Nielsen does not argue that users are idiots. Really, what he's 
saying is that users have other things to do with their time than 
figure out a fancy new interface. Designers can be guilty of tunnel 
vision, like everything else: They assume that because they spend a 
lot of time thinking about something, everybody else should be as 
conscious of it. Well, that's wrong.

Users are normal people, with many demands on their time. You think 
all they have to do is sit around and use software? They have a 
million things to take care of in any given day -- homework for 
class, pick up the kids from day care, grocery shopping, go to work, 
never mind actually fun things like seeing movies and hanging out 
with friends. Why shouldn't we impatient with software? If I have to 
spend an extra 30 seconds learning how to use a non-standard 
scrollbar, what do I get out of that?

What's curious about this discussion is that it mirrors the attitude 
many geeks had about Macintoshes when they first came out. (I'm a Mac 
user, but as a programmer it works out since I have a Linux box under 
my desk.) Tech-heads talked this and that about how you didn't get 
all the control you could get with a Windows box. Again, tunnel 
vision: They couldn't believe that someone might have use for a 
computer and yet not need to kinds of things you'd get by being able 
to directly edit AUTOEXEC.BAT. Well, life is a series of tradeoffs, 
and some people just want to have a computer to surf the web, write 
term papers, send email, and listen to MP3s. A lot of people, as it 
turns out.
-- 

Francis Hwang
http://fhwang.net

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: fredriksvensk@netscape.net
Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 12:27:19 -0400
Subject: Re: GENERATION FLASH: Usability/Interaction

Kristoffer <kgansing@hotmail.com> wrote:

>In his book "The Language of New Media", Lev Manovich states:
>
>"...given that most studies of new media and cyberculture focus on their
>sociological, economic and political dimensions, it was important for me to
>use the word language to signal the different focus of this work: the
>emergent conventions, recurrent design patterns, and key forms of new
>media."
 <...>


You are raising an important question here Kristoffer Gansing, especially
if we consider interactive design as an expansion of the utopian idea of
hypertext as an liberating or perhaps empowering concept. Such a line of
thought has to be rejected, since it does not question the performative
status of the action of the user, if we as Judith Butler seams to do, think
of performativity as an materialising process. And therefore I definitely
think your demand for a rethinking of the “user subject” within the
discourse of so called interactive design is needed.  To do so, I think we
also have to consider who the desire to create a “free user
subject” within  techno-media discourse is constituted, preferably
without slipping into Deleuzeian nor Lacanian clichés (logocentric or
not)? 

And, going back to Lev Manovich, who can we relate without dichotomising
the desire to as focus on the sociological, economic and political
dimensions to the desire to focus on language within the study of new media
and cuberculture?

- Why is the blue haired lady´s hairs a lady´s blue hair?

/Fredrik Svensk

__________________________________________________________________
Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/

Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 
#  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