« Link time | Main | »
November 02, 2005
On Design
Lately, I've been questioning the directions of interactive and immersive design. This is a huge and slippery topic — one often brought up to no real conclusions. I feel that the current players in design don't have a clear — or adequate, really — vision. The industry — and by osmosis pop-culture — is poluted with banal euphemisms, aphorisms, buzz-terms. 'Information architecture', 'immersion', 'designing experience', 'form over function'. These concepts and terms are thrown around without true introspection. There is a difference between innovation — designing for future — and designing for functionality. Of course, one must take into account existing product and the immediate needs of consumers. Ideally, precedence would be divided between the two, giving more oportunity for paradigm change — which is the essential target.
My reason for trying to articulate my thoughts on this subject come from my distaste for a gross amount of 'innovative' works. Huge Hi-res image/video instalation is pointless. If an immersive experience is saught after, how could a 2-dimensional array of pixels ever attempt adequacy? Even wrapping around the viewer. I find this outlook futile. And whats worse, existing technology is so often bastardized for these causes — inadequate and bulky works — that are largely not at all innovative. I denounce the work of Clifford Ross. I denounce all the minority report-like interfaces that require a piece of glass. Whats the point? In the same setting, an opaque touch LCD would work just fine. In contrast, a 3D interface would be much more suited for 3D control mechanism. And not to suggest that such a 3D interface would have no use, as the opposite is true.
I recently read an article in 4d Space - Interactive Arcitecture, that brought up historical value. The author maintained the integrity of a given work lies in its ability for historical transendance — and not the technology it employs. This concept is difficult to manuever, as clearly the technology is inescapable, but the aesthetics are the issue. There is much talk of masking the technology, and escaping the prison of the cargo-cult — something that is extremely valid.
Posted by alex at November 2, 2005 12:01 AM