An open question was left at a former post : Reading Facts. which I wish to revisit. When knowledge is not valued over its ability to be fast or slow what does is become? The issue with fast or slow knowledge rests on the delivery form factor, ie through computation (kindle, ipad internet) or not. The ability for the message to be lost due to the form factor it becomes delivered through has change dramatically due to technology in the past 10 years. Marshall Mcluhan said “the medium is the message” This statement has become widely accepted when discussing media theory especially print material. We are acutely aware of how content delivery changes between tabloid news, newspaper news, and news Television, and that is only taking into account a line of similar content. As content types diversify the ability of the medium to affect the message is compounded. There is a lively debate in academia as to how new media devices are affecting education and to that extent society. The level of pervasiveness within technologies like the internet, smart phones, computation and the like are having on sectors of society across all economic positions remains a huge challenge from both a standard of living access point but also a society & educated populace stand point. Because of that, education is on the head of the technology spear. The ubiquitous nature of information technologies has forced the systems of education to reevaluate their methodologies for better or worse. However I believe there is a massive gaping hole in the collective thinking process of education when it comes to communication technologies. Ubiquitous computation is seen as a barrier to teaching methodologies due to the nature and speed at which computational devices alter and change and access of content especially the content that is attempting to be taught through the teacher. The 19th century education model still dominates a vast majority of theory of education system especially k-9.
I don’t teach in k-9 but I would imagine it would be super difficult to dish out lessons, mandated curriculum and dated textbooks when a majority of that content can be accessed, parsed and delivered at the touch of a mouse. I am not saying that the speed of the information age is a bad thing, I can only imagine how it throws a wrench in to the teaching methodologies of countless classrooms. Similarly I am not suggesting that there should be a free fore all on the Internets access and ubiquitous nature. Many have discussed the difficult bind to which education is in and me rambling on about it is not really the point especially when there are writers & educators like Sr. Ken Robinson. But education has to find a what to establish what it means to be educated in our modern times. Is this going to be based on the old model of memorization and specialization or will it me more the ability to ask the right question and be endlessly curious with the ability to use technology to not only find the answer but contribute back to how the questions are asked?
I do believe that the ubiquitous nature and speed of our current technology has had a profound impact on our ability to tell stories. It is arguable that we have more stories then ever before and I would agree with that, however, it is purely an outcome of access not quality. The saying quality over quantity has never been more appropriate than when speaking about the internet and the amount of content that is added to it knowledge bank daily (to which I am adding with this blog). Therefore I believe that a fundamental piece that is missing in education is truly great storytelling skills, conceptual thinking and lateral thinking methodologies and subsequent devices to assist those skills. The ubiquitous catch all nature of computers is, in my opinion, having a detrimental impact on thinking out side the computer and impacting the skills of students, designers, teachers, and businesses.
I recently took place with the generosity of the AIGA Los Angeles Organization in the Student Portfolio day as a reviewer. Although I did not review hundreds of portfolios, one thing that I was immensely disappointed in was the lack of storytelling when in came to presenting visual ideas and solutions. Students seemed to have a prescribed set of things in their somewhat unimpressive collections of work. It made me sit back and think about what it is that a designer does? In the 5 portfolios I looked at it felt as if I was looking at a predetermined script. It went something like this. 1 to 2 logos with 1 of those logos as a letterhead business card etc, 1 to 3 print posters (just the solutions no context), 1 to 4 ad campaigns (non of them a systems of ads just a single advertisement), 1 to 3 editorial spreads (no context), 1 package (a cd jewel case, no context), and 2 to 3 misc illustrations, photographs, or typography pieces (again no context). Each having between 12 and 15 pieces. Only one person had even the hint of digital competency with an overwhelmingly simple html site but I gave her some slack because she was only a sophomore as USC and I appreciated the gusto to get evaluated at such a early stage in her schooling. However the predicted procedural nature of the portfolios made me stand back for a second and say wait? Is this really how education views the role of designers? Has the system of curriculum’s and dated industrial needs reflected so poorly on the skill sets of designers? Can we as visual professionals be so quickly summed up. My frustration with the lack of story telling lead me to be quite harsh on my last review of the day. I told my student. “Yes you have the required 15 pieces of work that has some how been determined this makes you a designer, however I know nothing about you! You have not told me a single story or lead me along any thinking path that has convinced me that your visual solutions are the correct ones.” I followed it up with “a logo and business card are the baseline of designer however if you can not tell me a story or show me that you have a making and thinking methodology then I really don’t care about your work. Period. I want to know if you draw, how many images you collected how many versions you did, why you chose to do this the question you asked the things you were looking at and thinking about when you made it. If I was going to hire you which I am not, I would want you. Not a prescribed set of 5 to 8 baseline skills, yes they are necessary but not unteachable in industry. If I were you I would find a way to let your portfolio be a mirror of your passion and your ability to think and think as a designer not the curriculum of your design education” After going a bit of a rant I said I was sorry for being overly harsh but without it all the work becomes useless to which he disappointingly agreed.
After all the reviews were over the reviewers and educators gathered as a recap of the day. During the discussion a number of reviewers shared the same frustration with a lack of personality and passion and storytelling in their students work. I am convinced that this lack of story telling is based in the narrow minded approach most educational systems are equating to design. Design rather than a thinking approach is a determined set of skills. However the collection of design professionals siting in the room were disgusted with the lack of understanding of what industry is looking for out of our design education systems. It seemed to me the design education systems were looking to teach predetermined skills where industry was looking for creative visual thinkers. Somewhere there is a missing element in the teaching of skills to designers. I believe that skill is storytelling. Design is not making a logo, the logo is the culmination of visual problem solving that requires a huge set of skills including design research, anthropology, biology, visual taxonomy, system thinking, business, drawing, computer skills, history etc etc.
“Design is that area of human experience, skill and knowledge which is concerned with man’s ability to mould his environment to suit his material and spiritual needs.” _archer, B
This lack of story telling could be a vision problem of education to design or it could be something more systemic as I had mentioned at the beginning of this post. Regardless of the root of misbegotten storytelling, I think that until we as educators, designers, professionals, and thinkers articulate the importance of media specific storytelling methodologies and start charting changes in the education delivery systems to meet these new changes, our society will start to see the growing effects and missed opportunities from not teaching and learning from profound stories and storytelling processes.
A Norwegian researcher, Anne Mangen, wrote an interesting paper in the Journal of Research in Reading, asserting that screen reading and page reading are radically different. “The feeling of literally being in touch with the text is lost when your actions – clicking with the mouse, pointing on touch screens, or scrolling with keys or on touch pads – take place at a distance from the digital text, which is, somehow, somewhere inside the computer, the e-book, or the mobile phone,’’ Mangen writes.
Her conclusion: “Materiality matters. . . . One main effect of the intangibility of the digital text is that of making us read in a shallower, less focused way.’’
The materiality of paper takes on a extended meaning due to its experience. The knowledge that is contained with in a book is not singularly wrapped up in the words on the page. From psychology class in college at Colorado State University, I remember my teacher telling us that our brains formulate knowledge and recall through repeating similar experiences under which that knowledge was learned. For example if you are juiced up on coffee while you study for a test you should be juiced up on coffee during the test because the brain associates the experience of the learning along with the recall of that information. Similarly you might be able to recall a story in a book more vividly when the same circumstances are repeated. The engagement of content influences our learning and subsequent recall. Therefore the reading of a book is learned through the experience of the pages. Knowledge that is engaged in the physicality of pages is then linked with that experience. Pages then become essential to formulation of knowledge within a book.
Media critic William Powers wrote a defense of physical bound literature in his essay, “Hamlet’s BlackBerry: Why Paper Is Eternal,’’ Mr. Paper – he not dead, Powers wrote: “There are cognitive, cultural, and social dimensions to the human-paper dynamic that come into play every time any kind of paper, from a tiny Post-It note to a groaning Sunday newspaper, is used to convey, retrieve, or store information.’’
Paper will never die, Powers concluded: “It becomes a still point, an anchor for the consciousness. It’s a trick the digital medium hasn’t mastered – not yet.’’
The digital medium has been attempting to replace the piece of paper and it has been around the corner in terms of technology since technology began. Now what if the digital medium and the physical medium where equal? When paper and computer work together seamlessly then paper takes on an added functionality with the computer.
The digital textbook?
With students doing so much of their reading assignments through the screen instead of on book or paper formats, it’s important for educators to determine how the shift is altering their habits and learning. The research is just beginning, but it’s getting deeper, an article in the Journal of Research in Reading (2008, pp. 404-419) by Anne Mangen, “Hypertext fiction reading: haptics and immersion.” Mangen notes the growing sub-field of screen reading studies, but finds that the “intangibility and volatility of the digital text” remain under-examined. She focuses first, then, on the material nature of digital and non-digital reading experiences. “Unlike print texts,” she writes, “digital texts are ontologically intangible and detached from the physical and mechanical dimension of their material support, namely, their computer or e-book (or other devices, such as the PDA, the iPod or the mobile phone” (405).
This is important, she argues, because “materiality matters.” The reading experience includes manual activities and haptic perceptions (what the skin and muscles and joints register), and so as activities and perceptions of that kind are changed from one kind of reading experience to another because of the object, the reading experience, too, will change.
So if materiality matters in the delivery of content especially reading material, then it would be arguable that to remove the materiality of paper from the reading experience would fundamentally alter that exchange. Screen engagement has become a reality in modern times but the advantages of the screen have forced its usability right next to the book forcing them to go head to head. I have chosen to regard these experience as different and explore a way to bridge the difference between experiences. As use of screen based devices increases, the need for physical interaction with objects like books will become essential in the recombination of content delivery. I believe users should not have to exchange one experience for the other in order to engage in the content the way they would like. Many things in this world have multiple experiences and with the linking physical and digital is opens up a strategy and platform for making printed content and digital content work together.
John Locke said, “reading furnishes the mind only with materials of knowledge; it is thinking that makes what we read ours.” Thinking can be greatly enhanced through digital means of networking so making paper and computer work together will greatly enhance the opportunity to make reading our again.
Seeing the letters is just the start of the reading process. Although our eyes are focused on the letters, we learn to ignore them. Instead, we perceive whole words, chunks of meaning. Once we become proficient at reading, the precise shape of the letters — not to mention the arbitrariness of the spelling — doesn’t even matter, which is why we read word, WORD, and WoRd the same way.
Until now most assumed that when we read both eyes look at the same letter of a word concurrently. But it was found that our eyes look at different letters in the same word and then combine the different images through a process known as fusion. We were able to clearly show that we experience a single, very clear and crisp visual representation due to the merging of the two different images from each eye.
Language tends to be stored in the brain to be processed in audio format, so besides reading the text we automatically convert it to speech in our own heads. After that the process of making sense takes place.
Studies have shown that when a word is checked against the storehouse of words in the brain – whether it is a written word or a word-sound – only the main part of the word is checked first, and then the ending is processed separately. For example, ‘sing’, ‘singing’ and ‘singer’ would all be checked against the base word ‘sing’.
Once we recognized the printed words we need to make sense out of them. Understanding how meaning arises from those words is of the most challenging tasks in cognitive sciences.
More on making sense and meanings can be found here and here.
There is an ongoing debate whether the new kind of reading experience provided by internet is beneficial or not. Some interesting articles are worth exploring: Is Google making us stupid and How is Google making us smarter. It would be interesting to incorporate the last scientific findings about how or brain reads in order to draw new and more accurate conclusions.
“Deep Attention” is characterized by the ability to concentrate on a single object for long periods of time. While “Hyper Attention” is the ability to focus on multiple tasks switching between each with relative ease and speed. Each style is considered a cognitive mode and is fostered and afforded by the media which gave rise to its birth. “Deep attention” can be attributed to the book while “Hyper Attention” is equated with the internet. These cognitive modes are looked at as being diabolically opposed similarly to the discussion that a rises around print vs screen technologies. However what if these cognitive modes could be gaped? How could hyper attention assist deep attention and vice versa? What would this media start to look like?
I believe that cognitive modes of attention should be versatile like that of Leonardo device as a Renaissance man. The educational and pedagogical stance should embrace the two parts of cognition and build services and tools that enable the ability and affordance of each. When knowledge is not valued over its ability to be fast or slow what does is become?
Deep attention, the cognitive style traditionally associated with the humanities, is characterized by concentrating on a single object for long periods
The Fortune Article ” the Future of Reading” poses some relevant questions?
Question 1: Will anyone be willing to pay for content delivered to a tablet when they can get information for free on the web?
Question 2: But aren’t tablets just a better way to browse the web?
Question 3: Reading? Reading is dead.
Question 4: How will tablet-based ads work better than the web?
Question 5: Can traditional publishing companies reorganize and move fast enough to embrace and serve new platforms?
these questions all poise the options as if the book and the screen are binary. Print media is looked as a being obsolete due to the advancement of screen based tablets. Granted the pervasive nature of digitized content will have a large impact on printed materials. This effect has already stated to take its toll when it comes to newspaper media. How ever like Red heads in America, their kind is not going to dissappear. Book and printed material might start to diminish but then is begs the question just as the question poised above, what is a book when it can exist on a screen?
This question requires going back to the nuanced history of printed material in bound and sequenced form and taking note of its ability to become ubiquitous and why? The screen and the book will never be the same thing as one is fundamentally material based ie pages and ink while the other is silicon driven ie the screen. Each of these forms is a media delivery device and technology. (Although many might not consider books a technology when compared to a computer) Each media format has its own place, use factors, acceptance, penetration into society, and distribution. Each is equally unique to its time and space and each is locked in a continuum that links the two in weave of consumerism, knowledge, and social contextuality. The screen experience would not be capable without the book, and the book would not be producible in contemporary terms with out a computer.
I have asked my self through out this process, why do we consider physical books and digital book and being so different. Why when you buy a physical book do you not receive the digital part also? It seems to me that if you could link the physical with the digital it would allow each of there forms strenghts and affordances to work together rather then in opposition. The simplicity of sequential pages bound together has a unique experience that can only be mimicked by the screen and the social and networking capabilities of a screen require the dynamics of that different system. What are the implications of making print and screen work together, well hopefully it will lead to more productive use of materials and a platform for a larger connection of information directed at specific context.
Computation seems to be in a second stage of evolution. As we move into a world where computation power is compact and millions of people are carrying super computers in there pockets, the computer has started to remove us from behind a desk. The potential of mobile computing has started to engage the user and the physical world in exciting possibilities. If the purpose of computation at our fingertips is to allow us connection to the information cloud, then what is the form that that connection should take? Mark Weiser famously quoted in his essay : The Computer For the 21st Century
“the most profound technologies are those that disappear. They weave themselves into the fabric of everyday life until they are indistinguishable from it.”
The interesting part is technologies start to change everyday life. Cell phones are no longer just phones but their ability to be that mode of communication has allowed the access of other interventions and introductions of computers into the hand and away from behind a desk.
A computer can’t be a piece of paper but that doesn’t mean a computer can’t incorporate paper. If books and print material could be used in the same fashion with their simplicity of interaction ie the turning of pages but have the advantage of a social counterpart, then computing would have the ability to become indistinguishable in everyday use by making the use of the book fit with the use of the computer.
he most profound technologies are those that disappear. They weave themselves into the fabric of everyday life until they are indistinguishable from it.
The Cronotope is a working prototype evolved from a methodology of thinking and design research which builds upon the book experience and ecology of book culture. The project rather then replacing the physical book with intangible data, incorporates the technological advances of networked pages, shared margin spaces, and physical interaction into the experience of the printed artifact as a way to explore the space between printed material and the screen.
Reading is uniquely a singular interaction but knowledge and comprehension are communal. The Cronotope is a system and design platform that incorporates the communal aspects of reflection, knowledge, and comprehension into the experience of the individual act of reading. As a system, the Cronotope will engage the social interaction and ecology of book clubs, study clubs, and educational groups. Through giving interaction to the physical pages of a book and building shared spaces for reflection, the engagement of comprehension becomes a shared event. When the margins of books and literature are shared what does the margin become, a communication space? A passive location to challenge a social exchange? A reflection space for many? A space to engage the content deeper with in a group?
The Cronotope is an outcome of seeing print material replaced and disregarded by its technological brethren. Print material including books, magazines, periodicals, newspapers, and comics have all come under the treat of being relegated to the trash due to networked screen technologies. Technologies such as the Kindle, Nook, future tablet PC’s and smart phones have greatly diminished the market share of print material. As technologies move forward and interaction with print material becomes lessened, the question should be how did this happen? it should be why has print material not adapted and become a link between ink and screen? The Cronotope is a system that uses prototyped conductive inks along with networking capabilities to explore and engage the experience of literature and its physicality as essential to its media type.
The Cronotope is named from the concept developed by Russian philologist and literary philosopher M.M. Bakhtin who used the term to designate the spatio-temporal matrix, which governs the base condition of all narratives and other linguistic acts. The term itself can be literally translated as “time-space.” The term is developed in Bakhtin’s essay published in English as “Forms of Time and of the Chronotope in the Novel.”
Knowledge is embodied in people gathered in communities and networks. The road to knowledge is via people, conversations, connections and relationships. Knowledge surfaces through dialog, all knowledge is socially mediated and access to knowledge is by connecting to people that know or know who to contact.
Denham Grey
If its not a screen make it one with a projector. Technologies are moving onto every surface. With a projector and software, interacting with computation can occur anywhere. It is really unimportant what the material is as long as it can have an image projected onto it, anything can be the new computer. The notion that any wall or surface can be a computer or interface with which to engage with computation establishes a value on the visual outcome of a computer. A computer and its interface can be boilded down to just light projected on a surface.
A computer is a type of machine and exisits with in the applied history and design spectrum of other machine. When a computer becomes just a screen or just light on a surface it neglects to recognize the importance of many aspects that make the use of a machine useful fun or engaging. Take haptics for example.
Haptics (pronounced HAP-tiks) is the science of applying touch (tactile) sensation and control to interaction with computer applications. (The word derives from the Greek haptein meaning “to fasten.”) By using special input/output devices (joysticks, data gloves, or other devices), users can receive feedback from computer applications in the form of felt sensations in the hand or other parts of the body. In combination with a visual display, haptics technology can be used to train people for tasks requiring hand-eye coordination, such as surgery and space ship maneuvers. It can also be used for games in which you feel as well as see your interactions with images. For example, you might play tennis with another computer user somewhere else in the world. Both of you can see the moving ball and, using the haptic device, position and swing your tennis racket and feel the impact of the ball.
Light as a phonomonia is untangible. One can not touch light the heat they feel from lets say a light bulb is altogether a different sensation but the bodies ability to use the sense of touch to establish knowledge about an object becomes a strong and useful tool for interaction. Interaction with a projection on a wall or table or whatever just becomes interacting with light an altogether difficult thing. A user is not really interacting with anything rather the computer is recognizing the limited physical space to which is being projected and then compensating though the use of software and mostlikely infrared sensors located in the projector. This technology assumes that the interface of a key board is just too bulky and should be illiminated or disregarded as an experience from the interaction with the computer. However the interface and interaction with the keyboard is entirely a learned interaction and has been evolved from the collective consiousness of the typewriter and education itself. A vast and nuanced history that has both been accepted and retaught an established truth of interface. The QUERTY is not going to redically change but somehow the idea that the physical interaction with keys is unuseful for a user of a computer negelts the ablity of the brain to memorize phyiscal space and repeat actions known as muscle memory. The phyiscality of even the simple keys to which this post has been made would have been a much different experience for my hands if I were just to project the letters onto a surface. I would imagine that my fingertips would hurt after pounding them on to a hard surface and that I would have to use more of my sight in order to correctly locate my fingers over the keyboard. The ability of a keyboard to have sutle haptic clues allows me as a user to orient my self to the interface of the keyboard with much more ease. I am speaking of the tiny raised dashes on the f and j keys. Any thing projected can’t accomplish this nuanced yet setting and orienting feature of the keyboard.
I am dismayed by the thinking that a screen is that answer to all our needs when interacting with computation. What would a computer be if it was not screen? why do we need to interact with computation only in the visible sense? Why have computer moved away from the machines you engage and experience and into the the real of only see? All these question arise when I am confronted by technologies that imply and attempt to bring to truth that a computer is really just a screen when I think that it could be so much more such a better experience that light on a surface.
Engaging users with an interaction is a difficult process. I am attempting to engage users in natural mapped interactions through iconography the associats a particular action of touch. Natural mapping is a term for the proper and natural arrangements for the relations between controls and their movements to the outcome from such action into the world. Like that of a door knob or a book.The real function of natural mappings is to reduce the need for any information from a user’s memory to perform a task. This term is widely used in the areas of human-computer interaction (HCI) and interactive design discussed in Donald Norman’s book : The design of Everyday Things.
Through out my experimentation with conductive inks and screen printing, I have started to try and engage the user in interaction with the tangible printed artifact. Paper and ephemeral material is inherently tangible and physical you can bend it, tear it, crinkle it, touch it plus it has a texture a quality and a materiality very unique to its form. Unique to the conductive inks is there ability to engage a user. The current experiment is a test to see if certain form structures are inherently engage-able. With out any signage does a user know to touch the paper and interact with the strips. This experiment utilizes the nature the higher contact equals a brighter light.
In the process of looking at printing material and contemplating the possibility of the end of print where a screen replaces all print material, I was struck by something that to date has not really been handled by screen based technologies. The Margin! Margins in technology since are locations for buttons, actions, and tools associated with the particular application that is being used.
Since the margin has excuse my pun been marginalized by technologies, I decided to do a number of explorations in to the potential of the margin when given a computational aspect and affordance. In order for me to get a good grasp on the design nature of margins with in printed matter, I have taken 9 of my books ranging from design porn to technical textbooks, I have done an analysis of the margin and implied usage and created a piece of relevant print material describing each examples margin design and use as associated with grid, layout and space.
The idea revolves around the notion of marginalia and the use of margins with in written content in order to apply notes, reflections and sketches.
