Adrian Miles on Fri, 3 May 2002 22:31:57 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Re: <nettime> full of having to think about usability |
At 6:19 PM -0400 2/5/02, nettime's_digestive_system wrote: >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 ’Äúuser subject’Äù 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 ’Äúfree user >subject’Äù within techno-media discourse is constituted, preferably >without slipping into Deleuzeian nor Lacanian clichˆ©s (logocentric or >not)? i'd suggest one of my own essays as a point of connection here. available in one iteration as http://hypertext.rmit.edu.au/essays/cinema_paradigms/cinematic_paradigms.txt in hypertext (and cinema in regards to edits) i'd argue links are performative in austin's sense with perlocutionary and elocutionary force. also means that usability is not about 'true or false' but about felicity, which as austin (and derrida in signature event context) has shown is only ever about context.... i also think it's possible to slip into deleuze without the cliche's :-) particularly around the rhizomatic rule of n-1 which is certainly how i think about my own hypertextual (text and video) practice. what gets interesting is the role of the user, though i think it can be solipistic to treat performatives as = to literal performances by the user in 'interactivity'. i suspect a more interesting trajectory (unless i've misunderstood) is something about the surrendering that the performative requires (it seems to involve some contractual felicity with an other) and how this relates to wht it is 'like' to click and surrender choice to the machine (just because the choice appears to coincide with yours doesn't mean tht each click isn't like the roll of the dice...) cheers adrian miles -- + lecturer in new media and cinema studies [http://hypertext.rmit.edu.au/vog/vlog] + interactive desktop video developer [http://hypertext.rmit.edu.au/vog/] + media studies. rmit [http://hypertext.rmit.edu.au] + InterMedia:UiB. university of bergen [http://www.intermedia.uib.no] # 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