Reading Response-Michael McManis

Nature of the Beast- Computers as Theatre

Laurel is a advocate for girl video game development and in the article we read of  a passage from her book Computers as Theatre, we get a first hand look at development of videos games. She opens with Spacewar, the first computer game, which was developed at MIT in 1962. She exclaims that when computers came out, it was natural to see the beginning of video game rise.  Agency is shared in computers, both the user and computer act and have a common context for action. So a video game is the definition of this union of computers and humans interacting together. This idea is required for the standard dialogue and communication model of UIs. Aristotle anchors this idea of agency and action.
As we continue reading, we begin seeing that Laura has some criticisms with the definition of interface. Interfaces is defined as "a system that is used for operating a computer : a system that controls the way information is shown to a computer user and the way the user is able to work with the computer" according to Merriam-Websters dictionary. So it may be a simple system between the user and the machine, but cognitive science introduces the notion of mental models, so the user and computer have models of each other.
Another classical approach is the view of the interface as a prosthetic, mapping directly between the user and the machine, where actions are mapped nearly one to one. Laurel does not not approve of these methods of understanding interface so she turns to look at a theatrical model of interfaces. Laurel then switches off a little and looks at psychology and finds that psychology and theatre are closely related. Psychology is where you look into what is going on, and theatre is where you look into what might go on. The idea with this is that the program performs for the user, and that the UI should be modeled after the technical support for a theatrical production.
The challenge with the theatrical model of the interface is the user’s role within the production. In an interface, the user and machine work together, but in theatre, audience participation is not always a possibility. Instead, Laurel proposes that the interface treat the user as a actor or actress that controls the show or machine. This challenge also percolates into Chris Crawford on interactive storytelling. Laurel’s definition is this: “It enables you to act within a representation that is important.” (p. 21) This definition challenges the assumptions with interfaces, but is nonetheless quite reminiscent. It however depends on ideas of action and representation that need to be fleshed out further.

Another idea that Laurel brings to us is that imagination plays a significant role in this theatre model. Art is an external representation of imagination just as what users produce through the interface to create something from the machine. Art is known for having many different interpretations to the eye of the beholder. This goes for metaphors of an interface.

This chapter is interesting to see the comparisons between an interface of a computer system and the art of theatre. Confusing to see as I am not proficient with computer terms but I could see the relation, primarily with the user/computer relationship compared to the actor/show relationship.