Conversation Record
Summary of discussion:
Ned is very interested in the possibility of using the XML driven comics as a way of building documentation for his software accounts and document management packages. We both feel this would work well as acountants are often techno-phobes who don't wish to understand software's operation and who would find large quantities of traditional documentation offputting. In line with what Kevin Cheng talks about, I believe that comic can resolve this be helping to remove complexity and aid comprehension. After batting the idea around for a while and discussing how we could implement what I've developed we started talking about further development. It was suggested that, rather than as in traditional documentation where diagram of the described action are displayed, we could actually embed the controls directly into the comic (much as in the idea I have for integrated, 1 stage comic based wizard replacements). This would run in tandem with a more expert interface which could be utilised when sufficient mastery of the training interface (comic) has been gained.
Summary of discussion:
I asked Steve for an opinion about my research proposal and anything he felt that I might do to improve it. Steve explained that he thought the content was okay but that the way in which I had presented it was "actively dull". Steve suggested I re-write the proposal as a comic.
Summary of discussion:
David and I revisited my research proposal. David made some specific suggestions regarding the language used in a few places as well as suggesting that I frame the research project with the concept of an action research case-study. David also asked that I tighten the objectives to have them read much more specifically than they do at presentl. All this seems like good feedback. I then discussed Steve's idea for writing the proposal as a comic. David agreed that this is indeed a good idea. Looks like I will be at least giving this a go.
Summary of discussion:
A discussion with David regarding my research proposal. It will still need a little tidying but is definitely getting there. Presentation seems ok. Argument seems broadly ok (which is very comforting, but I guess I'll find out more about this when I get Steve's feedback).
Summary of discussion:
A detailed discussion about my research proposal. I need to clarify some areas as I've been much to woolly. I need to fix the title so it refers specifically to comic books rather than just using the term "comic". I need to add in a statement of what I will do with any data collected in the reflective period. I need to tighten the audience definition to the home and office software markets ruling out specialist software such as aircraft HUD interfaces.
Summary of discussion:
Brief tutorial with Theo. I laid out my research plans so far. We discussed my basis for proposal which seems to be getting clearer each time I attempt it. Theo pointed out that there is no longer a need for me to undertake an exhaustive reflection upon my own research practice in an attempt to define functionality as I'd already done this in building the application the way I have and will continue this until I complete development.
Summary of discussion:
Steve and Theo joined me in the canteen. I laid out the weeks progress which has involved the first pages begining to come together. They aren't designed. Theere is no styling there whatsoever, just basic data markup and rudimentary controls (by rudimentary I mean hyperlinked text).
I think it's looking a little better now. Anyone else can begin to see how this may begin to work and why it would be useful for me. Positive noises were made. In truth I've already begun to use it to sort through information I'm looking for.
We had a fairly detailed discussion about the existance (or not) of convergence as a phenomena (as this is something Scott McCloud talks about (sort of) in his second book "Reinventing Comics" before the conversation turned to other topics.
Summary of discussion:
Florence, Rita and myself each took a turn to explain our research proposals to the others. This is handy practice for running through the arguments and for making sure it all makes sense.
Neil is a work collegue who holds a doctorate in a physics-related subject. I wanted to ask if the hotter = more intense / cooler = less intense way of looking at McLuhan's model holds for physics. Apparently it does and that this is considered a constant when mediated by the material of conductance.
Summary of discussion:
A thumbnail of the research so far was put to Steve over lunch with a view to firming up where the audience for the research sits.
After looking at what has so far been produced Steve and myself entered into a detailed conversation about why I had undertaken the kinds of practice that to this point I had. Given that the practice based research is presently in a formative stage it took some explaining and a good deal of questions and answers to explore fully. A number of points which were raised include:
Why it is that I am embarking on practice based research in which comics are created?
The answer being that I believe it to be impossible to fully explore such an ill academically considered, traditional and materials based media as comics in anything other than a practical manner. I feel I need to do it to know it and to understand it.
Steve is keen to see the resultant web application and asked why can't the interface be designed first?.
One of the foundations of my research is to the research of Paul Dourish into what he describes as "embodied interaction". Dourish's design principal, "computation is a medium" involves primary attention being paid to the task that the particular application performs. With this in mind it is, I feel, essential to have the remit of the interface design grow from the data and the application logic in terms of what actions it allows the user to perform. If the interface can present a mediated reflection of the application in this way the application should better be able to present itself in a transparent manner to the user. Also representations of these actions need to ideally be informed by:
- the computational process which the representations strive to represent,
- the field of practice in which the application is to operate,
- any "real world process" from this field which the representations stand in for a computational equivalent of,
Particularly in light of the first of these points, it is essential that the action and it's source be defined before it is represented.
What are the aims of the research?
To illustrate that the current trend towards what Marshal McCluhan would have described as a visually "hot" type of interface is counter to the interest of an "embodied interaction" in it's refusal to allow the user to interact WITH the representations as well as THROUGH them. An exploration of the interface from the perspective of the comic book medium hypothetically will result in a different kind of interface. This interface would make room for the user to create their own meaning within its representations, formed of their own experience and culture of practice. By providing a "cooler" experience the interface would actually participate in and add to the culture of practice in which it operates.
Finally, and in light of the above, the original question of "who is the audience for this research?" is firmly resolved as the web design / software develoment community.
Summary of discussion:
A chat with an element of interface design during my professional daily routine led to my explaining how Scott McCloud's gestalt smiley face. After drawing the image on a scrap of paper I asked Scott what he was looking at, he answered "a confused face". Scott had not only seen a face in the very simple image, his prior experience and inherent perceptual desire to make sense of the image had ascribed emotions to it as well.
Summary of discussion:
Steve asked the group to quickly outline their research thus far, what they were interested in persuing and how they intended to proceed. When my turn came I explained that I wanted to begin a detailed investigation into a variety of comic book artists styles and techniques in an attempt to gain some insider knowledge of the medium. This would inform the style and help with the process representation refinement within the resultant application. In tandem I would continue with my data definition and from this at least the remit of the applciation functionality would become apparent. As nothing negative was said about either path it seems as if proceeding in these ways will be the best thing.
Summary of discussion:
A brief chat in between part 2 presentations. I outlined the problem I'm having when viewing my research soley from the comic book perspective it cannot help inform and visual subject matter that I may use in control representations. I was going to use the Lakoff & Johnson basic level metaphor approach for this but as this is not strickly in keeping with the idea of looking at the interface from the perspective of the comic book I'm not sure if this element needs to inform the practice only and take a back seat in the actual theory or if there may be some connection I'm missing. Steve told me not to worry about this at the moment as this kind of issue should resolve itself as the practice continues. Hope it does!
Summary of discussion:
Progress tutorial with Steve. I outlined where I think I am with my research. Steve suggested I write a question, my aims and a thesis in brief to help me focus particularly my literature review. I then sent this back to Steve. No doubt this conversation will continue.
Summary of discussion:
Following on from my literature review of Donald Norman's "Human-Centered Design Considered Harmful", I asked David to clarify his position regarding Don Norman's approach in this argument. I was a little concerned that either I had misunderstood Don Norman's position or that the argument made was too flimsy to act as an adequate support for the part of my theory I wish to use it to re-inforce. During this conversation David clarified his position and letting me know that whilst there are inconsistancies in the rhetorical minutia, the position that Don Norman adopts is defensible. That's good enough for me and has opened my eyes somewhat to the minutia of detail that can be gleaned from and overlooked in this kind of discussion.
Summary of discussion:
I asked for Steve's opinion regarding the idea I have formed for the direction I want my research to take. I explained that in considering what the central "it" might be that I am working towards I have considered that I might build an interface, or a web or a theory. The issue with the first 2 is that they have no purpose and the third fails to include my practice. By combining all three and developing a web application which houses my research, is optimised for presenting my research and is constructed according to the principals the research sets forth the need for practice and theory to run in tandem is satisfied and the whole project becomes nicely self-reflective. Steve was keen for me to persue this idea.
Summary of discussion:
A conversation with Florence as a part of the practice session in rm 101. Whilst drawing a brainstorm of the ideas and theories I am interested in including in my research Florence was able to make a number of key observations. 1. I need to focus on what is achievable in the time I have to complete this research, as a result 2. I need to form a plan of exactly what I need to include and what I need to discard. This will need to be the result of a further literature review. 3. I could include in my research the idea of catering for differing learning styles. Some prefer visual / iconic learning, some prefer textual learning. At the very least it is something of which I need be at least aware.
Summary of discussion:
A general chat about our own research theories let to my exemplifying the "save" icon common to most software applications. We had been discussing it for a while before I described it as an representation of a floppy disk. Diane stopped, considered for a moment and then said "a floppy disk, yes I suppose it is". This is enormously important. Di is young enough to not have had much first hand exposure to a floppy disk so when she has been presented with a simplified representation of one that is not the meaning that was formed for her. Subsequently she didn't understand how this control could describe its computational process but, what is crucial is that the simplified and comic like nature of the representation had allowed space into which Di could fit the meaning that was created for her by her own experience with the use of this control. This is a great example of how a "cool" representation can mould itself to the appropriation of each participant.