The article starts out by talking
about one of the first computer games to come out, and how it just came
naturally. That people are attracted to action and that’s what the games did.
Brenda Laurel uses that point to explain why interface is so important, and it resonated
with me. She then went on to criticize how others have defined interface and
tried to help us readers understand the connection by comparing it to theater.
The way she describes interface as
being on the same type of level as theater was interesting. I would never think
to do such a thing, but once she showed some explains throughout chapter one I
immediately saw the connection and why it was relevant for me to understand. I
also found it interesting that she searched the definitions of psychology,
theater, and the approach to interfaces and they all turned out to be along the
same lines: something like representing an action or actions with a lot of
causes.
She also writes about how interface
will treat us like its character in the “play” rather than someone merely looking
in. At first I could not quite grasp what she was stating, but when I got to
think about it more it made much better sense. That people like to be included
with things, and if they create a program that makes us feel as if we are apart
of the production we will be much more likely to appreciate it, rather than if
we were just onlookers.
I like the idea of comparing
interface to art and theater. When she talks about imagination controlling must
aspects of art, as well as interfaces. It is so true. When designing a computer
program that is going to be received by humans it has to be done using
imagination to create an experience that simulates reality and is abstract at
the same time.
No comments:
Post a Comment