chapter 4
.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Monday, November 12, 2007
response:::language of the new media ch.4
chapter on illusions.
the one statement that I truly enjoyed in this chapter was:
"The new media changes our concept of what image is because the new media turns the viewer into an active user." p. 183
how about that? the image became interactive. it finds its full purpose when the viewer, or rather, user, messes with it. however, we know that images in the new media are meant to deceive the user [create the illusion of reality].
Again, we can compare to other medias like photo and painting and talk about the old desire for men to represent the world realistically. it wouldn't surprise me if in some years from now interface designers go for a more abstract way to represent reality.
.
the one statement that I truly enjoyed in this chapter was:
"The new media changes our concept of what image is because the new media turns the viewer into an active user." p. 183
how about that? the image became interactive. it finds its full purpose when the viewer, or rather, user, messes with it. however, we know that images in the new media are meant to deceive the user [create the illusion of reality].
Again, we can compare to other medias like photo and painting and talk about the old desire for men to represent the world realistically. it wouldn't surprise me if in some years from now interface designers go for a more abstract way to represent reality.
.
response:::language of the new media ch.3
I'd like to highlight some of the things I read in this chapter and that made me think:
- [about software containing templates and filters]
authentic creation has been replaced by selection from a menu."
we no longer have to think about the "in betweens". these templates allow us to skip many steps. i guess that because graphic designers are now used to filters and stuff we don't use them as arbitrarily as we use to in the early 90s.
- "objects are now represented as numbers."
yes. a photo is no longer a negative image on a roll of film. it's a bunch of numbers on a memory card. after being read by a machine it becomes a physical object. funny. if we think about the history of photography, we'll see that there were those glass plates that were too heavy and too expensive for the great public [only a few had access to it]. then kodak makes photo popular by inventing the portable camera. people could buy the camera, shoot and then take the roll of film back to kodak for them to develop it [partial power over process]. this routine went on till the digital camera, where the great public finally gained full control over the whole process: photographing and "developing". this power only became true because objects are now represented as numbers!
- prefix tele
once for all... it means from far away!
television, telepresence, teleaction, etc.
- ontology
according to wikipedia:
"Ontology is a study of conceptions of reality and the nature of being".
- compositing
"creating a fake reality"
eg. montages
.
- [about software containing templates and filters]
authentic creation has been replaced by selection from a menu."
we no longer have to think about the "in betweens". these templates allow us to skip many steps. i guess that because graphic designers are now used to filters and stuff we don't use them as arbitrarily as we use to in the early 90s.
- "objects are now represented as numbers."
yes. a photo is no longer a negative image on a roll of film. it's a bunch of numbers on a memory card. after being read by a machine it becomes a physical object. funny. if we think about the history of photography, we'll see that there were those glass plates that were too heavy and too expensive for the great public [only a few had access to it]. then kodak makes photo popular by inventing the portable camera. people could buy the camera, shoot and then take the roll of film back to kodak for them to develop it [partial power over process]. this routine went on till the digital camera, where the great public finally gained full control over the whole process: photographing and "developing". this power only became true because objects are now represented as numbers!
- prefix tele
once for all... it means from far away!
television, telepresence, teleaction, etc.
- ontology
according to wikipedia:
"Ontology is a study of conceptions of reality and the nature of being".
- compositing
"creating a fake reality"
eg. montages
.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
illusion:::fooling the little ones
.
yeah, back in the early 80s we thought his show was cool. illusion was created by inverting characters' proportions - huge monsters invaded tiny cities!
oh boy...
spectroman
opening theme
.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
3D:::in the beginning
.
I remember this was one of the first videos I've ever seen using 3D characters.
It was launched in national network in Brazil... It was such a revolution for the time, the early 80s. I still remember sitting in front of the tv with my family watching this videoclip and thinking "it is so cool. How do they do that?!".
.
Friday, October 19, 2007
it's just my imagination running away with me...
The Language of the new media
Lev Manovich
Intro to chapter 2 [cont]
Still thinking about the new and old medias, I’ve been wondering about Manovich’s statement that the user is imprisoned in front of the screen. There’s only one position they can have at a time. That made me think of the works of Georges Braque and Pablo Picasso in the very beginning of the 20th century when they invented Cubism. Cubism intended to show fragments of objects seen from different view points. I guess there are some similarities between Cubism and the 360° views available in some electronics’ websites. The sense of depth or tri-dimensionality is present in the products available in 360°, in a very clear way. In Cubism, however, if the canvas was the computer screen, I’d say that the computer’s system had “frozen” and that the screen was showing different views of a rotating object.
___________________________________________________________
There is one thing that has been on my mind for weeks now. I can’t stop thinking about the screen and how it was inspired by the canvas in a way. From the painted canvas and the screen I began to think about the stage. The stage environment, plays and other kinds of entertainment were a very popular subject matter when mass produced posters came up (with lithography – yes – I know that thanks to Liz and her History of GrD classes). This means that artists somehow wanted to immortalize scenes and personalities. It was real life versus painted memories. Anyway, my point is that thinking about artists depicting a stage in a canvas or paper, kind of tells me that stage-canvas/screen have some sort of relation.
The canvas was the place to see what you might have not had the chance to see in person.
The canvas was the concrete object that could connect the audience and the artist’s mind.
The canvas carried a message, an expression and was the reflection of the culture during a certain period.
The canvas “showed” who the artist was.
The reason I’ve been wondering about it is specifically a concert and a play. The first is Pink Floyd’s Pulse and the other is the Cats, the musical. Pink Floyd’s concert has always impressed me in many ways, but I can’t stop thinking about the flying pig, which fluctuates over the audience while Pink Floyd is playing. Cats is amazing because when you least expect, the dancers/actors appear in the middle of the audience and begin to stare at people’s face, mimicking real cats [and I tell you, it’s pretty weird to have a stranger looking at you that way]. In both cases the artists are not limited to the stage space, which I’ve been comparing to a screen. They invade the space where “users” are, just as VR does. It's like things and people are able to finally transpass the screen into the real world, just like in the movie the purple rose of cairo, where the good guy leaves the screen to meet the good girl. In the case of Pink Floyd and Cats suddenly what was imprisoned in a flatter space [the stage], which resembles a movie screen [format], becomes much more tri-dimensional because depth has increased dramatically.
Do you think it’s a crazy comparison?
[Well, I think that this whole stage/screen thing began when someone offered me to buy a raffle for a 52” television with a home theater. I guess the thought of having that “monster” in my room made me think that it would be almost as if I was in the audience of a show. I’d certainly “teleletransport” myself to the stadium/theater/whatever with that giant right in front of my face.]
.
Lev Manovich
Intro to chapter 2 [cont]
Still thinking about the new and old medias, I’ve been wondering about Manovich’s statement that the user is imprisoned in front of the screen. There’s only one position they can have at a time. That made me think of the works of Georges Braque and Pablo Picasso in the very beginning of the 20th century when they invented Cubism. Cubism intended to show fragments of objects seen from different view points. I guess there are some similarities between Cubism and the 360° views available in some electronics’ websites. The sense of depth or tri-dimensionality is present in the products available in 360°, in a very clear way. In Cubism, however, if the canvas was the computer screen, I’d say that the computer’s system had “frozen” and that the screen was showing different views of a rotating object.
___________________________________________________________
There is one thing that has been on my mind for weeks now. I can’t stop thinking about the screen and how it was inspired by the canvas in a way. From the painted canvas and the screen I began to think about the stage. The stage environment, plays and other kinds of entertainment were a very popular subject matter when mass produced posters came up (with lithography – yes – I know that thanks to Liz and her History of GrD classes). This means that artists somehow wanted to immortalize scenes and personalities. It was real life versus painted memories. Anyway, my point is that thinking about artists depicting a stage in a canvas or paper, kind of tells me that stage-canvas/screen have some sort of relation.
The canvas was the place to see what you might have not had the chance to see in person.
The canvas was the concrete object that could connect the audience and the artist’s mind.
The canvas carried a message, an expression and was the reflection of the culture during a certain period.
The canvas “showed” who the artist was.
The reason I’ve been wondering about it is specifically a concert and a play. The first is Pink Floyd’s Pulse and the other is the Cats, the musical. Pink Floyd’s concert has always impressed me in many ways, but I can’t stop thinking about the flying pig, which fluctuates over the audience while Pink Floyd is playing. Cats is amazing because when you least expect, the dancers/actors appear in the middle of the audience and begin to stare at people’s face, mimicking real cats [and I tell you, it’s pretty weird to have a stranger looking at you that way]. In both cases the artists are not limited to the stage space, which I’ve been comparing to a screen. They invade the space where “users” are, just as VR does. It's like things and people are able to finally transpass the screen into the real world, just like in the movie the purple rose of cairo, where the good guy leaves the screen to meet the good girl. In the case of Pink Floyd and Cats suddenly what was imprisoned in a flatter space [the stage], which resembles a movie screen [format], becomes much more tri-dimensional because depth has increased dramatically.
Do you think it’s a crazy comparison?
[Well, I think that this whole stage/screen thing began when someone offered me to buy a raffle for a 52” television with a home theater. I guess the thought of having that “monster” in my room made me think that it would be almost as if I was in the audience of a show. I’d certainly “teleletransport” myself to the stadium/theater/whatever with that giant right in front of my face.]
.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
the cheesiest tv show ever
this is chapulin colorado, a mexican tv show that [I can't understand why] everybody [including myself] looooves in brazil.
cheesy montages!!! [starting at 2:40min].
.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
response:::sept26
September 26
The Language of the new media
Lev Manovich
Intro to chapter 2
I’m amazed to see how some things evolve from others. It’s all based on previous principles. For example, motion movies evolved from photographic principles. It’s like one always has to look back [and learn something] to move forwards. This full circle that appears in so many things, that I might begin a list just for curiosity. As I mentioned before, the desire to create illusionistic realism on 2D surfaces date before Brazil was even discovered! [1500AD]. Now computer people want to do the same with us.
In the book, Manovich highlights some technical evolutions that were inspired on some previous device. It made me think. Think about the screen [and its origin]. Think about the cinema and how people [or at least one man] in the early 1920s wanted to show life in a different way [but I guess people thought he was too avant-garde]. Manovich made me think of the things that I dream of and that might become true someday, such as teletransportation [it has always fascinated me]. He made me think of the little details that might serve for greater things in the future, for example the canvas’ most used orientation that inspired the primitive and current screens formats.
Regardless the importance given to details or the years spent to come up with something [that would look] fresh, it’s very interesting to know the stories behind the happenings and to see that the full circle thing is a strong concept [since it’s been on my mind for years]. It’s good to be living in a time where “new” things are released all the time. These new things will definitely have a little more of my attention from now on, because I want to be aware of what is coming around again!
The Language of the new media
Lev Manovich
Intro to chapter 2
I’m amazed to see how some things evolve from others. It’s all based on previous principles. For example, motion movies evolved from photographic principles. It’s like one always has to look back [and learn something] to move forwards. This full circle that appears in so many things, that I might begin a list just for curiosity. As I mentioned before, the desire to create illusionistic realism on 2D surfaces date before Brazil was even discovered! [1500AD]. Now computer people want to do the same with us.
In the book, Manovich highlights some technical evolutions that were inspired on some previous device. It made me think. Think about the screen [and its origin]. Think about the cinema and how people [or at least one man] in the early 1920s wanted to show life in a different way [but I guess people thought he was too avant-garde]. Manovich made me think of the things that I dream of and that might become true someday, such as teletransportation [it has always fascinated me]. He made me think of the little details that might serve for greater things in the future, for example the canvas’ most used orientation that inspired the primitive and current screens formats.
Regardless the importance given to details or the years spent to come up with something [that would look] fresh, it’s very interesting to know the stories behind the happenings and to see that the full circle thing is a strong concept [since it’s been on my mind for years]. It’s good to be living in a time where “new” things are released all the time. These new things will definitely have a little more of my attention from now on, because I want to be aware of what is coming around again!
metamedium
.
coldplay
don't panic
[a work produced in this new metamedium can use all techiniques which were previously unique to these different media, or any subset of these techniques].
after effects, or velvet revolution in modern culture: part 1
by lev manovich
.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
playing with reality:::take on me
it has always interested people.
reality x fiction
2D x 3D
bw x color
drawing x photo
artificial x real
fake x original
.
the lawnmower man:::trailer
mentioned in page 110 of the language of the new media, on VR.
why a lot of movies about vr say it can be dangerous. can it really?
but you know what I enjoyed the most about this vr movie? PIERCE BROSNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN! =P
.
3Dx2D:::illusion on flat screen
Sete Pecados [2007] - Abertura
opening credits for Brazilian soup opera [it's about the 7 capital sins].
.
response:::sept 19
Interface Culture
Steven Johnson
This reading made me think a lot about what really is a link. If I simplify the concept, I can say that links are like bridges that join two points [not ends]. Links are what there is in between a start and an end [but not necessarily “the” start and “the” end]. They certainly can extend the time of a “web surfer” by giving him many different options along the cyber way, making the navigation through web browsers very personal. Depending on the user’s interests, it’s likely that his way through the web will differ from the paths traced by other people. So, if links are like bridges, like mediators, just like interfaces, can we trace a parallel between the similarities of the concepts of links and interface? If an interface is a link to the execution of a task, then we can consider the starting point the user’s intention and the end, the machine’s execution. So how similar are hyperlinks and interfaces?
Another thing that made stop and think was when he said that images are stronger than words [or as Johnson says it’s the “tyranny of image over text”]. As a graphic designer, I agree in part. Of course, images can communicate to an audience regardless of age, language, and many other features, but there are cases where images would never be able to communicate as well as words [imagine our mind maps with images! It’d be too subjective.]. With an image, the audience is sometimes left to their own interpretation, while with a word the margins for misunderstandings are fewer. Once I was talking to a friend of mine, who is a copywriter, about this tyranny of images over words because I was trying to convince her that one image worths a thousand words. What was my surprise when she replied saying “well, if that’s so, than give me an image that represents this saying!”. She left me speechless and not capable of doing so!
[here’s what I found on the intenet: If one image worths a thousand words, I would say that one good GUI worths at least a few megabits.]
Another example is of a game that is very popular in Brazil, called Image and Deed [I’d believe you also have it here]. Each representative of a group has to draw an image of whatever word appears on a card. The group has to guess what the drawing is. Regardless their ability to draw well, these representatives often try to use letters or special characters to guide their group into the victory. They simply give up on the image and by doing so, many times they are saying that is easier to communicate with words and letters than with images. I know it’s more complicated than that, but in the case of this game, I can say that words or characters are much faster to be understood than images.
However, images that were transformed into icons in interfaces are of great help in our everyday life. The desktop icons, which may differ from platform to platform make the computer environment more friendly. As Johnson says, they are visual metaphors that work with a cognitive function. It’s easy to know why there’s a trash can on the desktop. We make visual associations and understand functions [interface]. But, what if we just get used to these visual representations but never really learned what they mean? What if they appear on a different place every time we start an application? Would we be able to make our way through or have we been tamed to use them comfortably because we know their location and we know what to get from them?
Computers are creating new habits, creating new forces of habits. We’re leaving physical materials as paper and pens to dedicate our time to screens and keyboards. We’ve learned a different and unlimited way to either make associations or to link subjects.Every day users are more and more depended on these machines. It’s like humans and computers are performancing a very strong physical and intellectual symbiosis. This is scary and fascinating at the same time. Scared because of this dependency and fascinating because the computer can do what we as humans will never be able to do. It’s like computers are an extension of ourselves. However, this sense of extension could be improved. I believe that in a near future, the communication between parts will be even more transparent and fluent than it is today. Where we are going from now, I don’t know, but I know computer people will work to bring users and machines closer, not only visually but mostly physically.
.
Steven Johnson
This reading made me think a lot about what really is a link. If I simplify the concept, I can say that links are like bridges that join two points [not ends]. Links are what there is in between a start and an end [but not necessarily “the” start and “the” end]. They certainly can extend the time of a “web surfer” by giving him many different options along the cyber way, making the navigation through web browsers very personal. Depending on the user’s interests, it’s likely that his way through the web will differ from the paths traced by other people. So, if links are like bridges, like mediators, just like interfaces, can we trace a parallel between the similarities of the concepts of links and interface? If an interface is a link to the execution of a task, then we can consider the starting point the user’s intention and the end, the machine’s execution. So how similar are hyperlinks and interfaces?
Another thing that made stop and think was when he said that images are stronger than words [or as Johnson says it’s the “tyranny of image over text”]. As a graphic designer, I agree in part. Of course, images can communicate to an audience regardless of age, language, and many other features, but there are cases where images would never be able to communicate as well as words [imagine our mind maps with images! It’d be too subjective.]. With an image, the audience is sometimes left to their own interpretation, while with a word the margins for misunderstandings are fewer. Once I was talking to a friend of mine, who is a copywriter, about this tyranny of images over words because I was trying to convince her that one image worths a thousand words. What was my surprise when she replied saying “well, if that’s so, than give me an image that represents this saying!”. She left me speechless and not capable of doing so!
[here’s what I found on the intenet: If one image worths a thousand words, I would say that one good GUI worths at least a few megabits.]
Another example is of a game that is very popular in Brazil, called Image and Deed [I’d believe you also have it here]. Each representative of a group has to draw an image of whatever word appears on a card. The group has to guess what the drawing is. Regardless their ability to draw well, these representatives often try to use letters or special characters to guide their group into the victory. They simply give up on the image and by doing so, many times they are saying that is easier to communicate with words and letters than with images. I know it’s more complicated than that, but in the case of this game, I can say that words or characters are much faster to be understood than images.
However, images that were transformed into icons in interfaces are of great help in our everyday life. The desktop icons, which may differ from platform to platform make the computer environment more friendly. As Johnson says, they are visual metaphors that work with a cognitive function. It’s easy to know why there’s a trash can on the desktop. We make visual associations and understand functions [interface]. But, what if we just get used to these visual representations but never really learned what they mean? What if they appear on a different place every time we start an application? Would we be able to make our way through or have we been tamed to use them comfortably because we know their location and we know what to get from them?
Computers are creating new habits, creating new forces of habits. We’re leaving physical materials as paper and pens to dedicate our time to screens and keyboards. We’ve learned a different and unlimited way to either make associations or to link subjects.Every day users are more and more depended on these machines. It’s like humans and computers are performancing a very strong physical and intellectual symbiosis. This is scary and fascinating at the same time. Scared because of this dependency and fascinating because the computer can do what we as humans will never be able to do. It’s like computers are an extension of ourselves. However, this sense of extension could be improved. I believe that in a near future, the communication between parts will be even more transparent and fluent than it is today. Where we are going from now, I don’t know, but I know computer people will work to bring users and machines closer, not only visually but mostly physically.
.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
response:::sept12
Interface Culture
Steven Johnson
Chapters 1-3
The internet has opened so many different windows that sometimes it’s hard to try to understand it all. Besides having created a whole new level of networking, it intrigues me with its possibilities for the future. We’re reading a book that is now 10 years old and knowing the author’s expectations and dreams for the internet only makes me think of my own dreams and expectations about it too. I mean, the whole tri-dimensional virtual space he thought would be the big thing back there is still not true.
All the years that have passed and all the new advents only makes me think of what’s ahead. No doubt our technological speed is much faster than it was 10, 30 years ago [or as some say, some of these new devices have existed for a long time but only now are the market and the users ready for them]. I confess that I’m impressed with the speed new things are coming. Today, electronics are obsolete in less than one year. There’s so much on the market that sometimes I think that in one point our society will “break apart” and that different groups will live in different [technological] times. [wait a minute… it’s like that for years! Only money brings high technology into your home]. Anyway, the products are many and with them, new interfaces also appear. Take as an example, the new iPhone. One of its interface’s features make the user slide their finger tips to interact with it.
Along with the accomplishment of making users interact with the electronic devices through a physical, actual body movement, there are other features that call my attention. We know that the eager for creating the illusion of a tri-dimensionality on a two-dimensional space is gaining more and more space in the digital world. It all makes me think that during the Renaissance, artists wanted to reproduce exact replicas of the world on canvas, which is the same thought computer people have today. However, computer people think of it as a dynamic space. I confess that the idea of creating a tri-dimensional space on a digital based support excites me (check it out). I’m not talking about computer games or any of those artificial looking environments that already exist. I’m talking about places where are so realistic that makes you lose sense of reality. But I wonder, how far are we from that? I imagine it’s already out there, somewhere, but when will the big public have access to this kind of technology?
I don’t know if I’m thinking too small or too big today. Ten years ago Steven Johnson also wondered about some advances in computer technology. Some of his thoughts seem archaic now, but some may still come true. In the future, the window, the mouse, the keyboard before us won’t be the only [and main] digital reality we’ll interact with, I believe. Who knows if someday you’ll be inside a virtual 3D reality where you’ll be able to reach out for files on a floating folder above your head, or maybe mentally transcript texts to the computer through electrodes placed on your forehead, while your nice plays with her Barbie on a chair next to you?
Steven Johnson
Chapters 1-3
The internet has opened so many different windows that sometimes it’s hard to try to understand it all. Besides having created a whole new level of networking, it intrigues me with its possibilities for the future. We’re reading a book that is now 10 years old and knowing the author’s expectations and dreams for the internet only makes me think of my own dreams and expectations about it too. I mean, the whole tri-dimensional virtual space he thought would be the big thing back there is still not true.
All the years that have passed and all the new advents only makes me think of what’s ahead. No doubt our technological speed is much faster than it was 10, 30 years ago [or as some say, some of these new devices have existed for a long time but only now are the market and the users ready for them]. I confess that I’m impressed with the speed new things are coming. Today, electronics are obsolete in less than one year. There’s so much on the market that sometimes I think that in one point our society will “break apart” and that different groups will live in different [technological] times. [wait a minute… it’s like that for years! Only money brings high technology into your home]. Anyway, the products are many and with them, new interfaces also appear. Take as an example, the new iPhone. One of its interface’s features make the user slide their finger tips to interact with it.
Along with the accomplishment of making users interact with the electronic devices through a physical, actual body movement, there are other features that call my attention. We know that the eager for creating the illusion of a tri-dimensionality on a two-dimensional space is gaining more and more space in the digital world. It all makes me think that during the Renaissance, artists wanted to reproduce exact replicas of the world on canvas, which is the same thought computer people have today. However, computer people think of it as a dynamic space. I confess that the idea of creating a tri-dimensional space on a digital based support excites me (check it out). I’m not talking about computer games or any of those artificial looking environments that already exist. I’m talking about places where are so realistic that makes you lose sense of reality. But I wonder, how far are we from that? I imagine it’s already out there, somewhere, but when will the big public have access to this kind of technology?
I don’t know if I’m thinking too small or too big today. Ten years ago Steven Johnson also wondered about some advances in computer technology. Some of his thoughts seem archaic now, but some may still come true. In the future, the window, the mouse, the keyboard before us won’t be the only [and main] digital reality we’ll interact with, I believe. Who knows if someday you’ll be inside a virtual 3D reality where you’ll be able to reach out for files on a floating folder above your head, or maybe mentally transcript texts to the computer through electrodes placed on your forehead, while your nice plays with her Barbie on a chair next to you?
Friday, September 14, 2007
futures interfaces graphiques
don't know if they're for real or have been rehearsed, but the concept is very interesting anyway.
bitmap:::coldplay
speed of sound - coldplay
bitmaps
BW
11101000011000101
screen definition
zoom out
zoom in
huge pixels
color - light [+++=white]
color - pigment [+++=black]
enjoy really loud!
.
response:::sept5
a little [response] story [by association].
in the beginning
the hacker crackdown
In the beginning there were only people. However, among these people, there were some who were later called inventors. Throughout time their inventions brought progress to people’s lives, moving them from a state of complete (and literal) darkness to a state of high-speed interconnectivity. Devices such as electric light, telephone, radio, television, computer and internet impacted people everywhere. Everywhere people recognize these devices as technological improvements. After some time, people and technology began to interact. This interaction is frequently improved in order to optimize the communication between men and machines (this communication is made through what people call interface). Intuitive and easy-to-learn interfaces helped integrate men and machines even more. As time passed by, technology was absorbed into people’s lives in such a way that it became indispensable or, to some people, even a kind of external extension of themselves [the can’t-live-without kind of thing].
It’s amazing to see how things evolve. I still remember when we had to write a command line on the black OS screen. It was so wild to see the following lines coming after your command! It was sensational. However, the GUI brought a new dimension of interactivity.
On the readings and on our discussion on class, it was not totally clear for me what exactly can be defined as an interface. It is not just a matter of terminology, but if I think of the expression graphic interface the idea clarifies in my mind. This clarification disappears to the thought that a trigger or a steering wheel can also be interfaces. I understand why they are interfaces, but I then begin to wonder what else in the physical world can be an interface as well. Hope I can really understand and incorporate these ideas of interfaces to apply them in my design.
in the beginning
the hacker crackdown
In the beginning there were only people. However, among these people, there were some who were later called inventors. Throughout time their inventions brought progress to people’s lives, moving them from a state of complete (and literal) darkness to a state of high-speed interconnectivity. Devices such as electric light, telephone, radio, television, computer and internet impacted people everywhere. Everywhere people recognize these devices as technological improvements. After some time, people and technology began to interact. This interaction is frequently improved in order to optimize the communication between men and machines (this communication is made through what people call interface). Intuitive and easy-to-learn interfaces helped integrate men and machines even more. As time passed by, technology was absorbed into people’s lives in such a way that it became indispensable or, to some people, even a kind of external extension of themselves [the can’t-live-without kind of thing].
It’s amazing to see how things evolve. I still remember when we had to write a command line on the black OS screen. It was so wild to see the following lines coming after your command! It was sensational. However, the GUI brought a new dimension of interactivity.
On the readings and on our discussion on class, it was not totally clear for me what exactly can be defined as an interface. It is not just a matter of terminology, but if I think of the expression graphic interface the idea clarifies in my mind. This clarification disappears to the thought that a trigger or a steering wheel can also be interfaces. I understand why they are interfaces, but I then begin to wonder what else in the physical world can be an interface as well. Hope I can really understand and incorporate these ideas of interfaces to apply them in my design.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
response:::aug 29
Everything seems to be changing all the time. Although looking to the future, men’s timeline often refer to the past when they want to better understand, create or update processes. Some of these processes might take men only a few steps further in evolution. On the other hand, some other processes might open men’s understanding widely and give them a much deeper interpretation of what has been done so far, bringing new insights to old questions, widening paths or changing the direction completely. Whatever the [temporary] end is to a process, the starting point is basically the same in all of them: collecting references from previous experiments, in other words, collecting information. By putting pieces of information together men are closer to the next step, so the walk for knowledge continues. Information brings dynamism and consequently motion to the process. Wherever the accurate information is, it is there that the men’s mind must drink from. Only by looking into the past (near or far) can men transform the processes that will transform the future.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Friday, June 1, 2007
lucy in the sky with diamonds
.
certainly it would be much better if there wasn't a video clip to this song. leaving the scenes to our imagination is much more fun.
anyway, happy 40th anniversary sgt. pepper's!
.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Friday, April 27, 2007
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Sunday, April 22, 2007
s.e.t. ::: vik muniz
"the mirror can tell you how you are but never what you are."
article: mirrors; or, "how to steal a masterpiece" by Vik Muniz
[http://www.vikmuniz.net/www/index.html]
.
article: mirrors; or, "how to steal a masterpiece" by Vik Muniz
[http://www.vikmuniz.net/www/index.html]
.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Friday, April 20, 2007
s.e.t. ::: vik muniz
"ideas make you do a lot of work. it's like i have a whole bunch of people in my head telling me what to do, but there's only one guy to do it all."
.
.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Friday, April 13, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)