Meeting with Simon
Last week I had a discussion with one of my tutors, Simon Clatworthy, about the focus of my project. The discussion revolved mostly around how to weigh the different aspects of the project. On the one hand there is the study of everyday objects. This study obviously relates to the development of the prototype games, but at some point along the way I will most probably touch upon game culture and social norms as well. In conclusion the prototype games that I will develop will be influenced both by the study of everyday objects as well as game culture and social norms.
We decided that a good starting point would probably be to look at spesific game objects as well as objects in general found in the home. This just to see if one could identify any differences or similarities between the two in the way they are understood and used. The question of whether it would be possible to categorise the objects in suitable game categories quickly arose. Would it i.e. be natural to put a pencil in a category of games involving swords or rackets or both?
In essence this is a discussion involving the affordances of different objects. There are evidently things one can do with a pencil or a hammer which one can't easily achieve with a tea candle or a dinner plate. In that sense the affordances of the different objects could possibly constitute the categories in which to arrange them.
The affordances of different objects is rather closely linked with what one can describe as the tangible language used when interacting with them. The following discussion on the topic revolved more or less around whether the object became irrelevant in relation to body language and tangible language. The question was essentially if the spesific object i.e. a knife or a pencil was irrelevant and the tangible language was determinant. After a while we came to agree that some sort of middle way was most likely to be the case. The object might be irrelevant when i.e. performing a pushing motion on a pencil or knife. When doing the same thing towards the rim of a coffee mug however the object becomes relevant again. Pushing on the top of a pencils we assumed most people would interpret as pushing onto something. In the case of a coffee mug the assumtion was that the interpretation would be pushing into rather than onto something.
The conclusion being that both tangible language and the physics of the object are relevant when studying and categorising them.
We decided that a good starting point would probably be to look at spesific game objects as well as objects in general found in the home. This just to see if one could identify any differences or similarities between the two in the way they are understood and used. The question of whether it would be possible to categorise the objects in suitable game categories quickly arose. Would it i.e. be natural to put a pencil in a category of games involving swords or rackets or both?
In essence this is a discussion involving the affordances of different objects. There are evidently things one can do with a pencil or a hammer which one can't easily achieve with a tea candle or a dinner plate. In that sense the affordances of the different objects could possibly constitute the categories in which to arrange them.
The affordances of different objects is rather closely linked with what one can describe as the tangible language used when interacting with them. The following discussion on the topic revolved more or less around whether the object became irrelevant in relation to body language and tangible language. The question was essentially if the spesific object i.e. a knife or a pencil was irrelevant and the tangible language was determinant. After a while we came to agree that some sort of middle way was most likely to be the case. The object might be irrelevant when i.e. performing a pushing motion on a pencil or knife. When doing the same thing towards the rim of a coffee mug however the object becomes relevant again. Pushing on the top of a pencils we assumed most people would interpret as pushing onto something. In the case of a coffee mug the assumtion was that the interpretation would be pushing into rather than onto something.
The conclusion being that both tangible language and the physics of the object are relevant when studying and categorising them.
posted by Are at 17:33
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home