David Roedl | Human-Computer Interaction Design

I recently read an inspiring article by Jeffrey and Shaowen Bardzell from Sept/Oct issue of interactions magazine. The first part of the piece examines the nature of avatars, or digital representations of self. The authors point out that avatars are increasingly important as the interface element through which users interact in online applications, ranging from profiles on Facebook to 3D characters used in virtual worlds like Second Life. Drawing on Goffman and Turkel, the Bardzells make some strong points about the relationship between avatar and user identity. Specifically, they recommend that designers understand avatars as subjectivities as opposed to representations: “A representation is a static signifier… a subjectivity, in contrast, is a living force, an agent that both acts in the world and is constituted in the world through action.” The authors continue:

“In this view, avatars are not images or characters radically separated from the “real” players; they are aspects of players’ real-life identities played out on virtual stages, not unlike the way the same people might “perform” at frat parties or wedding receptions or in classrooms and restaurants.”

This distinction has profound implications for the design of social software. Designing a social tool following the representation model is a relatively straight-forward, but ultimately limiting approach. Essentially, it involves providing a finite set of fields that users can fill in to describe themselves. However, if we wish to create an application that really resonates with users and becomes part of their social life, it must provide a space for more fluid and dynamic types of identity performance. The choices designers make about the structure of the platform will influence the subjectivities that users develop and experience: “As interaction designers, we might ask how the stages, or interactive ecologies, we create regulate or encourage identity performance.” Since I don’t play many videogames, the only avatar I have much experience with is my Facebook profile. I wonder, in what ways does Facebook enable or constrain different types of identity performance?

Continue »

I recently came across this link for Resondr, which I think is a very creative and engaging interactive experience. While I’m not that interested in branding and marketing myself, I think the tangible immediacy of camera-based user control offers potential for a wide variety of delightful and expressive applications. What’s even more interesting to me is that this exact concept was explored by my team during our theme park design project last year.

As I remarked in my last post, seeing a concept independently replicated by someone else is a common experience, but one that inevitably provokes some reactions. In addition to feeling validated in my thinking (and a bit jealous that I couldn’t capitalize on the idea ;) , I am also caused to reflect on my creative development in the past year. It occurs to me that one year ago, upon seeing such a technology, I would have said to myself, “wow thats cool. how the hell do people think of such creative stuff?” And here I am today, looking and saying to myself, “yes thats cool. I thought of that too!”. I don’t mean this as to rest on my laurels and suggest that I’ve achieved some visionary abilities. Rather I just want to reflect on the process which enhances one’s creativity so that I can better continue to do so.

Coincidentally, a first-year student recently brought up this issue on one of the I541 blogs. I reproduce my comments here just so that I won’t forget these insights:

I felt exactly the same way at the beginning of the program. I always considered myself far more analytic than creative. I was the guy who questioned and shot ideas down rather than generating wild new concepts. Man, has a lot changed for me since then! While I still don’t consider myself any kind of artistic visionary, I now have a lot of confidence in my potential for imagination and creativity.

Reflecting on that change, one of biggest assets is as you noted: working with peers. Not only can their creativity be a source of inspiration, but learning to collaborate on really hard problems will seriously challenge you to step out of your comfortable habits and ways of thinking. On that note I would strongly encourage you to be a facilitator on one of the later projects. I found that being forced to lead a group in a creative process is a great way to pull some creativity out of yourself.

Another asset is what Marty has emphasized for project two: constraints. Counter to intuition, constraints really do enhance imagination. Why? Simply because under contraints, imagination is the only way achieve your design goals. This is where your analytic, or ‘devil’s advocate’ tendency can be of service. When you’re never satisfied with any idea, it propels you to keep trying, generating concept after concept until you’ve found a great one.

Of course there’s also time to suspend all analysis and criticism. Exercises like brainstorming are good for this, where ideas are repidly generated and no one is allowed to criticize.

John Zimmerman, design professor of CMU, spoke at the Informatics colloquium today. His topic was “designing for the Self” and his aim was to design products which help people become the people they want to be, or at to at least feel like they are. His approach was to focus on the way people construct and represent their identities through possessions. Continue »