Having been involved in theater since age nine, I especially enjoyed the theater analogies that he used when referencing computer interfaces. While many of these metaphors had elements of truth to them, they didn't seem to go far enough for me. His comparison of a graphic designer to a stage designer certainly worked, but the comparison of a computer user to a theater audience seemed vastly different. True - a theater audience does shape a performance and can be involved but only to a certain extent. The true involvement comes through the actors on the stage and their interaction with the backstage design, set, lighting, and sound. At most, an audience member can get more involved through his/her imagination during/after the performance. For traditional performances, though, the plot and message(s) of the play are not going to change due to anything that an audience member does.
While reading Jenkins' introduction, though, I started to think more about how the computer interface could be similar to an interactive, improvisational theater. My favorite improv theater is Theater 99 in Charleston, SC. In fact, that is one of the things I miss most about Charleston. For my birthday last year, I went to see a show at Theater 99. Their show involved a group of actors who did "improv." (As a former improv-er, I know that the situations had been rehearsed at some level - characters/situations had been created, and they could all be meshed together to create what appeared to be unrehearsed drama. To a level, of course, it is new, but to say that the actors got up there without some sort of "script" would be inaccurate).
To enhance the "participatory culture" of the experience, there were two "emcees" for lack of a better term. One spoke directly to the audience regarding participation and the other chimed in with snide remarks here and there regarding both the audience and the actors. These third party emcees helped to shape the participation so that it flowed more naturally and also flowed in a way that would achieve the best theatrical effects. As I thought through both the Jenkins and Laurel readings, I kept returning to this third party who, to me, seems to be missing from the interface model. Wouldn't a third party help to enhance the conversation between user and computer?
When I think about user experience, the first user I think of is myself. And I was having a less-than-ideal user experience when trying to read and take notes on both Laurel's and Jenkins's text. I am trying to keep all of my documents electronic and read/annotate them electronically. It helps me keep them all in one place and not have to lug around as much. However, the steps it took for me to read these texts and then to be able to annotate them were many more than if I had been using a hard copy of a book, and they were certainly more difficult to annotate. In an effort to find an easier interface for annotating these texts, I turned to Google and looked for better .PDF annotation softwares. I am now using two different ones - Mendley and NookStudy. Mendley is better for .PDFs, and NookStudy is better for eBooks.
Just as I think Laurel left out a key component of theater that can increase audience experience - an emcee, especially in an improv environment, which is what much of a computer interface is like since the audience is more active than passive, much of the computer experience that I am involved with is leaving out this third party. There needs to be someONE else to talk to about certain aspects of an interface. For example, I would love to talk with someone at NookStudy about improving their annotation software - letting them hear from me and how I could better use it if I could highlight a PDF and not just an eBook that I purchase from them. I'd like to talk to Mendeley and tell them that I'd like to be able to add and sort tags to documents that I annotate using their software. In theory, this is possible. I could submit an email or call customer service, but the time involved with talking to a service rep and improvements actually being made is too long.
Jenkins' Convergence Culture referenced the New Orleans Media Experience in which "the general public [could] learn firsthand about the coming changes in news and entertainment" (7). Jenkins notes, though, that the few "outsiders" who did show up were ill-informed on the convergence of media that was occurring or on the culture of media as a whole. His goal, he claims, is to "document conflicting perspectives on media change to [...] critique them [...because...] if the public doesn't get some insights into the discussions that are taking place, they will have little to no input into decisions that will dramatically change their relationship to media" (22). At first glance, I like Jenkins' statement. I would like to have input regarding how media is created and delivered. In reality, though, I do not know that his book or similar books from others will have much effect as to whether or not the voices of consumers are heard accurately or timely. I'm not sure how to increase this conversational interface of a computer, and I'm certain Jenkins, with his background, has a much better idea than I. I am open to hearing more of what he has to say and also to looking into others' ideas and possibilities for improving the interface(s) available.
No comments:
Post a Comment