Tag Archives: readings

Constraints

In regards to Norman’s (1988) concept of ‘affordances’ and ‘constraints’ in this chapter Ritchie refers to affordances and constraints in relation to what are described as ‘interactive narratives’.

Quote:

Affordances and constraints: An affordance is both the perceived and actual properties of a system or object that determine how it may possibly be used. Conversely a constraint is the actual and perceived attributes of an object or system that limits its possible uses. There are four types of constraints: physical, semantic, cultural and logical.

Reference:

Ritchie, J. ‘The Affordances and Constraints of Mobile Locative Media’ In Hjorth, L., J. Burgess and I. Richardson (eds) Studying Mobile Media: Cultural Technologies, Mobile Communication, and the iPhone, New York: Routledge. pp. 53-67.

Affordances overview

The use of the term ‘affordance’ in this investigation is taken from Norman (1998) within the field of design, and refers to the properties of things in relation to how they are used.

In the Design of Everyday Things (Norman 1998), the term ‘affordance’ is defined as the ‘perceived and actual properties of the thing, primarily those fundamental properties that determine how the thing could possibly be used’ (1998, p.9). Norman suggests that a person forms a ‘conceptual model’ of how things are used, and this is comprised of ‘affordances, constraints and mappings’ (1998, p.12). A pair of scissors is provided as an example. The holes in the handles, which are designed to take fingers, are an ‘affordance’. The diameter of the holes is a ‘constraint’ designed to indicate how many fingers can be put in each hole. In regards to the concept of ‘mapping’, the relationships developed between the constraints and affordances—in this case the fingers and the holes—indicate how the scissors are to be operated (Norman 1998).

With computers, Norman (1998) draws attention to the issue of conceptual models being made visible on a device that is not as tangible as (for example) a pair of scissors. Norman outlines that:

The abstract nature of the computer poses a particular challenge for the designer. The computer works electronically, invisibly, with no sign of the actions it is performing. And it is instructed through an abstract language, one that specifies the internal flow of control and movement of information, but one not particularly suited for the needs of the user (1998, p.177–8).

Norman (1998) uses this argument about the abstract characteristics of computers to make a point about the mission of interaction designers who work solely on making the computer usable for users, as opposed to programmers who focus on the operability of computer software. In regards to designing conceptual models for computer users, Norman (1998) suggests interaction designers concentrate on turning the abstract qualities of a computer into perceivable and comprehensible designs that can be used easily like other everyday things. I would suggest, using Norman’s concepts, that a significant part of creating conceptual models for computers, like in the design of a pair of scissors, involves making the relations between the ‘constraints’ and ‘affordances’ perceivable to computer users in the form of ‘mappings’.

Making a connection with working with computer, and the nexus between design and media production, the concept of affordances is also contextualised in Inventing the Digital Medium (Murray 2012). The author states: ‘Looking at the computer as a single new medium we can see its defining representational affordances: The computer is encyclopedic, spatial, procedural and participatory’ (Murray 2012, p.51). The ‘procedural’ affordance of computers is described as having the ‘ability to represent and execute conditional behaviours’ (Murray 2012, p.51). These procedural properties of computers allow fragments of information to be organised into different combinations that are not fixed. Murray’s second ‘participatory affordance’ enables a user to influence the process of how fragments are converted into communicable information, along with altering and adding content. The ‘encyclopedic affordance’ utilises the potential to store large volumes of information in varying types of collections that can be communicated as knowledge. In regards to ‘spatial affordances’, space on a computer becomes virtual and navigable, which sets it apart from more traditional media in regards to how it is represented in an interface.

References:

Norman, D 1998, The design of everyday things, Basic Book, New York. (pp. 1-33)

Norman, D 1999, Affordance, conventions and design (Part 2), Nielsen Norman
Group, viewed April 2012, http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/affordance_conv.html.

Murray, JH 2012, Inventing the medium: principles of interaction design as a cultural
practice, MIT Press, Cambridge, ‪Massachusetts‬.‬‬‬‬‬ pp.51-59)

Publishing reading

Refer to readings page for access. Also added to the week 5-6 flipped lecture G-doc.

Another very useful reading for the Brief 1 essay (with introduction overview by the editors for quick access). These historical context readings can be used to make connections in the evaluation sections of your essay, from the broad to the specific.

Nelson, Theodor H. “Proposoal for a Universal Publishing System and Archive (from Literary Machines).” The New Media Reader. Ed. Noah Wardrip-Fruin and Nick Montfort. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1981. 441–462. Print.

And as a back up to the web article provided earlier (the full article without ads and an introduction overview).

Bush, Vannevar. “As We May Think.” The New Media Reader. Ed. Noah Wardrip-Fruin and Nick Montfort. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1945. 35–48. Print.

Net Smart (additional wk 5-6 reading)

An additional reading and book for considering what you do with online media.

Rheingold, Howard. Net Smart: How to Thrive Online. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2012. Print.

Download and read the Net Smart ‘Introduction’ pdf.

Interview with the author – podcast

From the book summary:

Like it or not, knowing how to make use of online tools without being overloaded with too much information is an essential ingredient to personal success in the twenty-first century. But how can we use digital media so that they make us empowered participants rather than passive receivers, grounded, well-rounded people rather than multitasking basket cases? In Net Smart, cyberculture expert Howard Rheingold shows us how to use social media intelligently, humanely, and, above all, mindfully.

Mindful use of digital media means thinking about what we are doing, cultivating an ongoing inner inquiry into how we want to spend our time. Rheingold outlines five fundamental digital literacies, online skills that will help us do this: attention, participation, collaboration, critical consumption of information (or “crap detection”), and network smarts. He explains how attention works, and how we can use our attention to focus on the tiny relevant portion of the incoming tsunami of information. He describes the quality of participation that empowers the best of the bloggers, netizens, tweeters, and other online community participants; he examines how successful online collaborative enterprises contribute new knowledge to the world in new ways; and he teaches us a lesson on networks and network building.

Rheingold points out that there is a bigger social issue at work in digital literacy, one that goes beyond personal empowerment. If we combine our individual efforts wisely, it could produce a more thoughtful society: countless small acts like publishing a Web page or sharing a link could add up to a public good that enriches everybody.

Week 2 Video Lecture

Here is a week 2 video lecture (16 mins) to compliment the flipped classroom material. Please have a look at this before you come to the tutes this week.

This video provides some context around what we are covering this week mainly in regards the protocols and logics of blogging for this course.

There is an additional reading that you should put alongside this video.

Miles, Adrian. Network Literacy: The New Path to Knowledge [online]. Screen Education, No. 45, 2007: 24-30.

Please note I have added this material to the (week 2) flipped classroom notes.