Sunday, November 15, 2009

MX: Reading response #2 (page 78-93)

One of the things the reading hit dead on was the difference between the cinema "user" and the computer interface user. The person who appreciated film could understand its language, but could not speak it while the computer user both understands and speaks the interface language. This is relevant to our Community project. It made us realize how the system works, what should be kept in mind when creating a user-generated website and taught us basic programming language.

The paragraph about the cinematic frame is also relevant to Multimedia class. By making the user scroll to see more images, i am showing him something that is outside the given frame. I show him that there is a world beyond the browser.
The article also talks about the way the user often has options in the way he can preview information. Dolly movement, scroll, etc can create a narration that will help the user transition from one are to the other. I think this is a big innovation in interface design compared to the cinematic display and the eye are that option of transitions and navigation. Cinema always makes the transitions a part of the film and controls your perception while various options of transitioning helps you be the creator.
When the article talks about the Dungeon Keeper and the ways it can switch the view from action to the bird's eye view, it reminds me of the image/word cloud Kyle and I had in the project. It is a different idea, but has a same idea of accommodation for the user.

I found the Berlin project quite innovational. It is making the project 3D, but also incorporates media that was created way before the computer and uses it for the display of data rather than a cinematic image in itself.

No comments: