topical media & game development
research directions -- metaphors and interaction style
Given a problem statement as the one above, to present
information about contemporary artists,
how would you proceed?
You might start by asking potential users, or stakeholders,
how they would like the system to be.
The answer you will get this way is likely to be disappointing.
They will probably tell you that it must be like something
they already know.
So it might be better to rely on your own intuition and find
a creative solution by choosing a fitting metaphor.
Let me give an example.
In creating the digital dossier, a notion that will be explained
in the next section, for the artist Marinus Boezem,
as presented in the research directions
of section 9.2, we choose the artist's atelier
as a metaphor, and we used the spatial layout of
the atelier as an organizational principle for presenting
the information.
In this, indeed very naturalistic, approach, we used pedestals
to present the artworks, a file cabinet to present the textual
information and a video projector to present the video recorded
interview with the artist.
The extent to which the virtual atelier does represent the artist's
atelier faithfully is not important, in this context.
What is important is whether the spatial metaphor did function as a valid
organizational principle for presenting the information.
Instead of arguing whether this is the case or not,
or whether the graphics chosen were right, etcetera,
I would rather like to refer you to the literature,
so that you can investigate the issues involved yourself.
In [Preece], it is observed that interface metaphors
act as conceptual models to support particular tasks.
For office tasks, for example, we have the wellknown desktop metaphor.
[Preece] lists a number of such metaphors, for a variety of
application domains:
| application area | metaphor | familiar knowledge |
|---|
| operating environment | desktop | office tasks |
| spreadsheets | ledger sheet | columnar table |
| object-oriented environment | physical world | real world |
| hypertext | notecards | organization of text |
| learning environment | travel | tours, guides, movement |
| file storage | piles | categorizing |
| multimedia environments | rooms | spatial structures |
| cooperative work | multi-agents | travel agents, servants |
In the most right column it is indicated why the metaphors should work,
assuming real world situations that we are familiar with.
In some cases it is necessary to speak of a composite metaphor.
For example, scrollbars are not easily to be found
on your natural desktop.
Form a cognitive perspective then, we may speak
of multiple mental models.
When we look at what interaction styles are supported
from a more technical perspective, we have
following [Preece], the following options:
interaction styles
- command entry
- menus and navigation
- forms fills and spreadsheets
- natural language dialog
- direct manipulation
However, each of these interaction styles may somehow
be incorporated in the representation that we adopt for our metaphor.
2D vs 3D
Surprisingly, each year that I start with another multimedia casus
group, there is a discussion whether the application should be in 2D,
using traditional web technology or flash, or 3D, using VRML
or any other suitable 3D technology.
My answer to the students objections, which can partly be explained by the fact
that they fear the complexity of 3D, is flatly that anything that can be done in 2D can be done in 3D.
But looking at the list of interaction styles above,
I am tempted to add that a 3D representation allows for a more
rich repertoire of interaction styles, such as spatial navigation.
It would be interesting to investigate to what extent the interaction styles
used in game playing can be incorporated
in 'more serious' applications.
(C) Æliens
04/09/2009
You may not copy or print any of this material without explicit permission of the author or the publisher.
In case of other copyright issues, contact the author.
