Cynthia Pengilly » Visual Rhetoric/Doc Design

Response to Surveillance Readings: The Power of Gaze

Sunday, April 5th, 2009

Response to Producer + Audience Readings

Sunday, March 29th, 2009

Jenkins’ “Interactive Audiences” piece was most useful in thinking about the ways that social technical writers form or make-up the collective intelligence of software products. According to Jenkins, “fandom was already a knowledge culture well before the internet” where members could engage in shared knowledge and collective intelligence of a specific community. I believe that social technical writers are a type of fan – of a specific technology product – because most social technical writers are not likely to write about a technology product that they do not own. Instead, they will often document or blog about a product that they own (and don’t want to get rid of), so they instead show others how to get the product to work for their own specified uses. In this way, the Internet serves as a database, of sorts, of the collective intelligence of social technical writers who document Blackberry or iPhone capabilities. “CrackBerry.com” or “GoogleTutor.com” are two such sites where fans participate and share their knowledge with the community through the use of the Internet. In this way, these fans help other fans to incorporate third party software plug-ins to improve the user experience. And sometimes, such plug-ins become indirect suggestions to software companies about upgraded features, that are almost always incorporated in future product revisions.

Posted in Visual Rhetoric/Doc Design

Response to Do Good Design by Berman

Tuesday, March 24th, 2009

Posted in Visual Rhetoric/Doc Design

Response to Live|Work Interview and Text

Tuesday, March 24th, 2009

About the Authors

Live|Work, a Service Innovation Design Company, began in 2001 with 3 partners: Chris Downs, Ben Reason, and Lavrans Lovle. They are interaction and web designers who are concerned with networks and service, which means they are promoting use over consumption. Live|Work was one of the first service design agencies, so the founders found it necessary to develop dual-purpose language about service design that would appeal to both designers and academics alike.

Summary of the LiveWork Interview

Services exist over time and are experienced through multiple touch-points. Service ecology maps the way actors would interact within a given system. Services are intangible and don’t really exist, so Live|Work has had to find evidence of how such services would work – the service experience. (i.e. evidencing). Evidence is about faking the experience by developing facts/artifacts that describe the impact of a service. Actors and objects involved must be considered (who, what, when, where, how); time and community rules must be recorded. Prototyping: how can you do it fast and cheap?

Summary of the Live|Work text (beginning on page 30)

The founders of Live|Work want to promote use over consumption, which means that they are interested in designing service or service experiences rather than products. In order to do this, future service experiences must be better than the quality and desirability of products people own/consume. In short, they ask how do you get someone to desire their banking service?

Designing services includes “…full service that takes into account all the stakeholders, thinking about what the bank-end system is having to do, what the motivations of the staff are, and the motivations of the competitors. The customer experience is part of that” (Services p.417).

Service Design (p. 420-21)

Design and development of intangible experiences
Uses touch-points to reach people
Should be crafted with same level of care and expertise as products, interactions, and interfaces
Must learn how to inscribe cultural meaning into a service (we know how to do this with object/interfaces)

Image: Live|Work Service Equity = Service Design + Service Thinking

Service Ecologies (p. 421-422)

Process used to establish a systemic view of a service and the context it will operate in
Map service ecologies: map the actors affected by the service, relationships between actors, reveal new opportunities and inspire ideas, establish the overall service concept
Create sustainable service ecologies where the actors exchange value in ways that are mutually beneficial over time

Services should be more sustainable since you pay for a value you receive/use, instead of a product you purchase/consume. Service ecology is like a natural ecology in that it cannot be fully analyzed or understood, but it does help when making decisions. Service ecology thinking acknowledges multiple partners over time, unlike product design, where value is exchanged. Value can be intrinsic such as value in trust and emotion.

Touch-Points (p. 422-23)

Tangibles that make up the total experience of using a service
Can take many forms: advertising, web interactions, mobile phone & PC interface, bills, CSRs
Should be crafted to create a clear and consistent unified customer experience
Analogy: Journey through a service experience where there are important moments within the journey – want the experience to seem multi-dimensional
Transitions between touch-points are on-ramps and off-ramps

“Every service has a bill. Every service has an interface. But the way you transition between those things is where the brand of the service can live: in-between experiences can be designed” (422).

Service Envy (p. 423)

Products serve two basic needs: 1) perform the function they are made to do and 2) confirm and communicate the owner’s personal values – we identify ourselves through a complex product and brand language. Services must also communicate the owner’s personal values and this should be the ultimate goal of the service designer.

Image: Nissan, Free Oil Change for Life

Evidencing (p. 423-24)

Animated ideas that represent the mapped assumptions about future service
Focus on design of service and its effects
Examples of evidence: newspaper article describing service results and third-party responses
Archeology of the future: allows designers to make early qualitative judgments about design implications
Faking it: quick and informal techniques used to create evidence (ex: fake bills as evidence that a service exists)

Evidencing “allows customers and collaborators to ‘play back’ their own assumptions as concrete experiences rather than abstract evaluations” (423).

Experience Prototyping (p. 424)

Prototypes of service experience are similar to prototypes of product
Prototypes should be fast and as cheap as possible
Include multiple service touch-points set the scene and determine place/time of service experience
Participants must suspend their disbelief during the experience

The goal is to get an intimate and subjective idea about what the service experience would be like.

Service Experience Models (p. 425-26)

The model is an invaluable way to develop, refine, share, and present designs (425). Service models represent or do the following:

Represent intangible experiences
Should use formats to convey the experience and the functions of the service in an immediate way
SE models allow for easy evaluation of the viability of the services
SE models allow for easy sharing of service experience concepts with potential users, colleagues, and decision makers
SE models will be what is used to determine whether a service should go into development, needs further development, or should be ditched

New services require lots of new touch-points and it is easier to fake them than design them in full. But you need more than just a prototype – it must be a believable prototype so that the conversation can be focused on the experience of the object instead of the unrealness of the prototype.

Service Blue-Printing (p. 426)

Describes a service in enough detail to implement and maintain it
Used during development by designers, developers, and business process managers
Used as a daily guide by service managers to inform them of the features and quality of the service (technical specs & infrastructure, brand management)

Classic design principles, such as usability testing, will be used once the “Go-Live” date approaches.

Sources

Live Work Interview with Reason, Lovle, Downs

Live|Work Chapter, Services

Service Equity [Image]. http://www.livework.co.uk/

Posted in Visual Rhetoric/Doc Design

Response to “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” Benjamin

Tuesday, March 17th, 2009

About the Author

Walter Benjamin was a German Jewish intellectual exile known for his strong contributions to the field of Marxism and modern aesthetic experience. He initially began as part of the Frankfurt School of thought which had a suspicion for standardization as it occurred in American popular culture. However, many scholars argue that he ended up more along the lines of the Birmingham School which considered the audience’s role in the production of culture.

Summary

Artwork has always been reproducible by apprentices practicing their craft and those looking to make money, but mechanical reproduction is a new concept (Section I, 2). The Greeks used founding and stamping; The Middle Ages used engraving and etching; the 19^th century had lithography which traced designs on stone instead of wood. Photography was created a few decades later for picture reproduction and sound reproduction was created for use in films. These are all types of technical reproduction which provided a standard for reproducing all works of art.

The domain of tradition (Section II, 3) and ritual (Section IV, 5) is heavily present in art work. The concept of “aura” is used to describe the feelings associated with works of art. For Benjamin, aura comes from institutions of power (top-down: according to influences of government, church and state). Aura includes originality, authenticity, and inapproachability (inability to access it; distance felt between a person and work of art). The ritualistic part of aura ties the value of authentic works of art to the location of its original use (Section IV, 5).

Authenticity: historical testimony experienced by an object
Originality: “unique existence at a place where it happens to be”
You cannot have authenticity without originality (its precursor).
Originals also have authority, where technical reproductions do not.

�

Technical/mechanical reproductions of art lack a “presence in time and space” (3), and they have no authority because they have no history (i.e. authenticity). On the other hand, there are some advantages of technical reproduction (Section II, 3):

It is more independent of the original than manual reproduction. Photography can bring out aspects of the original that cannot be seen by naked eye. Photos can also capture images which escape natural vision (i.e. enlargement, slow motion).
Can place the copy into new situations which would be out of reach for the original. It enables the original to meet the beholder/viewer/spectator half-way by coming into the studio, study, office or other living spaces (i.e. bring things closer, 4). Even with this advantage, however, the quality is always depreciated (3).

Mona Lisa Replicas

�

Technical reproduction removes the reproduced object from tradition (3) and dependence on ritual (5) which causes loss of aura. Instead, culture is an industry (where art and culture has been commodified) and art is no longer produced for originality but for its reproducibility (5). The definition of art – the way we make, see, and use art – has changed:

�

There is no such thing as originality anymore (photos, movies).
Originality is no longer a criterion for judging art.
No one makes art for originality (but for its reproducibility).

�

Original conceptions of aura are lost, but replaced in mass culture by aura of people and celebrities (8), but Benjamin believes that this is misplaced or misguided aura (9). Since there is no more aura, an artificial build-up of the actor’s personality is used to create a sense of aura. This personality is fake and is a type of commodification (9).

�

The perception of the world has changed and ordinary people are more meaningfully connected to art. Benjamin uses the analogy of Magician is to Painter AS Surgeon is to Cameraman (10). The painter obtains a total picture where the cameraman reassembles fragments in a new way which defines a new type of reality, free from all equipment (cords, lights, etc.). This reality is an illusion, but it has changed perceptions and participant roles (10). New roles have been created with technology:

�

Technology demystifies artistic creation and almost democratizes culture in this way. Spectators are now participants/collaborators (i.e. differences are merely functional, pg. 9). Now, anyone can be an artist (blogger, fan-fic, photographer, part of a film).
More people can access works of art – no longer just for the elite. For Benjamin, original conceptions of aura divided people according to class, so that those in lower class cannot afford to travel to see high works of art like the Mona Lisa
Mass culture destroys aura. Art is now based on democracy and politics (a good thing).

Ms Paint: Painting Mona Lisa - Watch the top videos of the week here

We now enjoy the standardized convention so that the less social significance something has, the more enjoyment we receive (11). The masses seek distraction (where the work of art is absorbed) over concentration (where the person is absorbed by the work of art) (13). However, if technology is exploited, propaganda and aestheticized fascism can result (i.e. Germany).

At the end of the essay, Benjamin goes back to discussing Facism. Facism succeeded in Germany by aesteticizing politics (14) – taking their brand/politics and turning it into art (i.e. cloaking it). All efforts to render politics through aesthetics leads to war (15).

�

Relationship to Prior Readings

Much like Sontag (1977), Benjamin points out the differences between the real world and the image world (i.e. what is represented by photography and film). According to Benjamin, the reality that we know is an illusion, but we require (and expect) it nonetheless. This demarcation between what is represented and what is actually there also ties in nicely with Dragga & Voss (2001) in Cruel Pies: The Inhumanity of Technical Illustrations. These projected illusions would be similar to what Dragga & Voss refer to graphic or visual lies that are ethically misleading. Benjamin would assert that such representations work to close geographical and social gaps through the redefinition of aura, but these projections are misrepresentations of reality – and we should think of them as such. What are the implications of creating such visual lies? What role does it play in society and in culture, generally speaking?

Relevance to Own Work

From a political perspective, theorists have claimed that technical writing acts as a controlling source in culture because of its standardization and knowledge hierarchy. It values one type of knowledge (formal, institutional, top-down) over that of others (informal ways of knowing; self-taught). In this way, I suppose that more attention could be paid to the photographs or images used by technical writers when designing technical illustrations (see Dragga & Voss). I am sure there are other connections to be made between this text and the field of technical writing, but I cannot think of more at this time.

Sources

Benjamin, W. (1935). “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”

Dragga & Voss. (2001). Cruel Pies: The InHumanity of Technical Illustrations.

Class Notes, ENG 696: Introduction to Popular Culture, Dana Heller

Sontag, S. (1977). The Image World. On Photography.

Strinati, D. (2004). An Introduction to Theories of Popular Culture. (2^nd Edition).

Electric Asylum. (2007). How to Paint the Mona Lisa with MS Paint. [YouTube Video].

Posted in Visual Rhetoric/Doc Design

Visual Map of the Field

Tuesday, March 3rd, 2009

This week’s posting will show my personal visual map or representation of the field. Since I am interested in studying writing that takes place outside of the corporate setting, I have a strong influence from the cultural studies perspective. However, I believe that cultural studies and the political economy are in constant dialogue as labor changes and cycle changes within a given field are a direct response to the demands of capitalism and should be understood as such.

You will also notice that I have only positioned my map within the field of technical communication and for several reasons. First, since I have a technical communication background, that is what is most familiar to me. Second, I would also like to divulge that I am still struggling to define myself within english studies (broadly speaking) or professional writing (more specifically) so this is likely the reason why I have not placed it on my map. Third and most important, since I am interested in writing that takes place outside the walls of the organization, in my mind, the type of writing to which I am referring is not professional writing - it is social writing.

I am defining social writing by its location (outside the walls of a corporation) and by its purpose (true UCD in the sense that writers are translators of consumer interest instead of corporate values and meaning). How does the act or practice of translation differ now that it has shifted? What does labor consist of and how is it articulated? How is labor managed? And finally, as if authorship and ownership were not already blurred enough, how are these issue handled by these new writers? I am still working on a formal name for this group of writers, but I have come up with the following: non-professional technical writers, new media technical writers, and social technical writers.

Deliverable: Field Map

Posted in Visual Rhetoric/Doc Design

Response to Cruel Pies: The Inhumanity of Technical Illustrations

Tuesday, February 24th, 2009

I am torn between the two sides of this debate, but let me first begin with a summary. Dragga & Voss begin by discussing the fact that technical communicators are part of the humanities; we have done a great job of adapting the spoken and written word according to this principle. However, when it comes to visual images, charts, graphs and the like, we have failed miserably. In fact, we have approached visual text as if we are scientists - depicting humans and the human condition as mere numbers on a chart. The main argument, in other words, is that we should also infuse a humanistic perspective in our visual arguments by using icons (pictograph of soldiers or human faces), semantic fusion (incorporating words such as quotes to show the humanistic perspective), and selectively-placed images (lumberjack at work or a baby in walker at the top of the stairs).

First, let me say that I was not even aware that there existed an entire body of knowledge about the ethics of visual images. Where and when did this happen? And more importantly, how did I miss it? When I think about the concept of “graphic lies” (a term used in the article), I first think of technology products. What are the implications of such distortion for the corporation that owns the product? And does this somehow lessen the value of their products? I am a devout PC user here, but the example that immediately comes to mind is Windows. Microsoft continues to promise the consumer fast and reliable products (in their images on TV, the web, etc.); yet, their promises rarely hold true. But, we continue to purchase the products. But this could just be because of the pervasiveness of MS in our culture. So…what would be some other examples?

Dragga & Voss were obviously aware of the type of reaction they would get from readers. For example, in their closing statements they mention that no graphics are worse than cruel graphics. Furthermore, they state that infusing humanistic ethics in graphic depictions would change the conventions and theoretical principles of design. But, they say that this is the point. “A humanistic ethic would require us to perceive sensitivity and efficacy as at least equally important, as reciprocal and recursive influences on the design of visual communication. (7)” All I can think is don’t we already get this type of display when we watch the news everynight? Granted that may be an example of the cruel depiction of graphics, but it is nonetheless a depiction. So, I remain undecided about this topic, but it does get you thinking about things. And one other thing: I can’t say that I will ever look at a table, chart, or statistical data the same ever again. (So, maybe Dragga & Voss did get me to pay attention.)

Posted in Visual Rhetoric/Doc Design

McCloud’s Vocabulary of the Comics

Saturday, January 31st, 2009

The Vocabulary of Comics by McCloud was a very interesting read because it rhetorically constructed a visual argument for why cartoons allow people to focus on what is being said rather than who is saying. In my opinion, I believe this has wider implications in the academy setting generally speaking. For example, I wonder if my students will pay more attention to what I am saying in class, if I spend less time providing my own perspective on a topic rather than listening to them talk. Is this why graduate students are required to give presentations on class readings as an attempt to change the source of information received in hopes of getting students to focus on what is being presented? It does make you wonder. As it relates to design and visual rhetoric, the concept of removing the designer from the picture is a familiar concept - good design requires no explanation and is invisible, if it is done well. I would also add that good design uses the affordances already present to make the product more usable.

In McCloud’s piece, I also like the definition of an icon, which resembles that of a noun for composition and writing instructors – an image used to represent a person, place, thing, or idea. A cartoon icon uses abstraction to simplify what we are seeing so that the focus is placed on specific details. This idea of abstraction reminds me of the modeling industry because black and white photographs are still considered better representations of a potential model/actors natural beauty than color photographs; this is because color photographs allow for more distractions when studying an image, but models who can still look appealing in black and white photographs are considered to be “the cream of the crop” because they are represented in their barest of form.

Finally, McCloud mentions that “a cartoon is a vacuum into which our identity and awareness are pulled.” I believe this is reminiscent of the idea of popular culture, generally speaking, where scholars believe the sites of popular culture (television, film, etc.) to be reflections of our anxieties, fears, likes, and dislikes.

Posted in Visual Rhetoric/Doc Design

Reading Response on Tufte’s Visual Confections: Juxtapositions from the Ocean of the Streams of Story

Monday, January 26th, 2009

Summary

Tufte defines a story as a progression of noun-verb incidents. Confections are visual explanations which use a particular combination of visual elements to “illustrate an argument, present and enforce visual comparisons, combine the real and the imagined and tell us yet another story (121).” Confections should be used for the design of information (139). There are two types of confections: compartments and imagined scenes. The compartments group visual elements together in a distinguishable way – such as with a border or call out button. The imagined scenes are not real places/events, but are used to further develop the story or argument (127). Confections are made by cutting and pasting, constructing and managing “miniature theatres of information” (138). In this way, confections are “a cognitive art that serves to illustrate an argument, make a point, explain a task, show how something works, list possibilities, narrate a story” (138).

Tufte’s theory of design is that memory and recall is easiest when “mnemonic emblematic reductions” are used such as allegories, puns, and bizarre associations. These reductions compress detailed materials down into elaborate confections or groupings of visual elements (125). Confections are all about deeply illuminating ideas and the relations among ideas; clear thinking will result in an excellent display of information via confection (141). In short, confections should make reading, seeing, and thinking identical (151). When used correctly, confections can help to express an order in space and time (131). Since they are a particular kind of design, confections have the ability to bring new meaning to familiar objects based on how the visual elements are arranged (133). Confections work to show how image and thought are linked (141) and how form and content are intertwined (138). For example, the illustration of the process of graphic thinking and creation on page 141 is effective at displaying the relationship and intersection between the hand, mind, and eye. The downsides of confections are that they suffer from “thinness of content, flimsy logic, poverty of annotating text, and heavy-handed arrangement of structure” (141). Speech is not enough by itself because it is low resolution and not as effective as illustration – showing rather than telling is what works. Tufte uses an example of teachers who rely solely on lectures are not as effective as teachers who also use illustration (145).

When organizing information, the structures used should be “transparent, straightforward, obvious, natural, ordinary, [and] conventional” (125). An example used is that of a welcome screen at a museum which helps patrons to locate themselves in the facility by providing visual cues and a printout with directions on how to get to the next exhibit (146). Tufte also cautions that the guides, keys, and codes used to assist in understanding information be limited in administrative tasks which can impede understanding (125). The information should become the interface and the information should be described in space, rather than in time (146). In the museum design, 90% of the image is substance. The confection should not resemble the institution hierarchy (information about the founder, message from the president, etc.) because this is not of interest to the user nor does it help the user in achieving their task.

Finally, Tufte ends with the bad design principles that one should avoid. Television disease is commonly found in interface designs; it is noticeable because of its thin substance, contempt for the audience and content, short attention spans, and over-the-top styling (148). Other bad design analogies include organizing information similar to television scripts, organizational structure, software decision-trees, and page turning in a book (149). The screen counted should be measured according to 1) % of screen devoted to content/substance, 2) density comparisons between printed item and computer interface, and 3) the number of computer commands immediately available – the more the better (150).

Author Information

Edward Tufte is an expert on presenting informational graphics (such as charts and diagrams) and currently teaches statistics, information/interface design, and political economy at Yale University. He is probably most well known for his criticism of Microsoft PowerPoint and its frequent misuse. This is often dubbed as the “PowerPoint Makes You Dumb” phenomena.

�

Relationship to Prior Readings

The power of confections can be related to our class discussion about good design being invisible. Specifically, Tufte uses to different confections representing mind/eye/hand to show effective use of confections and what can happen when a confection lacks thought as it occurs in the design process. Also, the integration of form and content and space time could be seen as being similar to Stroupe’s argument in Visualizing English about the non-exclusive nature of text and image in illuminations from last week. Similarly, Smith’s piece on “Aristotle’s Classical Enthymeme and the Visual” argues that text and image should be in conversation with one another.

If we look back at Week 1 of the course, I believe that confections make direct use of William’s four design principles – contrast, repetition, alignment, and proximity – which is what makes them so successful. While all of the design principles can be seen within confections, I would argue that alignment and proximity are most noticeable just based on the definition of a confection – the grouping of visual elements used in the design of information.

Relevance to Own Research

Beyond simply teaching the concept of confections to students, I believe that the idea would be most useful to designers in a workplace setting. The beauty about confections is that it refers to groups of visual elements which can include text or image, so it can be equally used by technical writers, graphic designers, or web page designers and its usefulness as a way to design information would still hold true. At this point, I know the concept is useful and I will one day put it to use in the classroom setting, but I cannot say at this time when it would be most applicable.

Sources

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Tufte

Williams: Design Principles from Non-Designers Design Book

Stroupe: Visualizing English

Smith: Aristotle’s Classical Enthymeme and the Visual

Tufte: Visual Confections from Visual Explanations

Posted in Visual Rhetoric/Doc Design

Archive for the 'Visual Rhetoric/Doc Design' Category

Response to Surveillance Readings: The Power of Gaze

Response to Producer + Audience Readings

Response to Do Good Design by Berman

Response to Live|Work Interview and Text

Response to “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” Benjamin

Visual Map of the Field

Response to Cruel Pies: The Inhumanity of Technical Illustrations

McCloud’s Vocabulary of the Comics

Reading Response on Tufte’s Visual Confections: Juxtapositions from the Ocean of the Streams of Story

Archives

Categories

Links

Subscribe