It is amazing that three classes was taught by one professor within one day. The best part is that we only discussed the theories in the first two classes, because after the second class, my head was already painful and turn into mess because of those questions and my hard thinking. After almost three hours discussion, it’s difficult to stop thinking those concepts, and terms. The interesting thought of my friend Tao is that it is so ridiculous to explain words by using words which were created by human beings. He also believes that the best tool to explain thing is image. We cannot deny that it is true for concrete things, but as for abstract words, I cannot imagine what kind of image we should use to. Maybe it is not very important to make a judgment about it rightness now, but I feel so happy to hear this kind of different sound. Even thought it just is one sentence said during a friendly dinner, it leads me to think.
We discussed what is material and what is the tools in interaction design. Bits, programs, programing language, content…. At first, I believed that the content is the material, minutes later, I convinced my self that the program is the material, but now, I think the program should be the outcome, but what is the material? Logic flies across in my mind for maybe just 0.0001s. if program is the outcome, language is tool, the bits are material!? Is what are are designing is the logics including work flows involved in a project? Then the material is maybe the mappings or connections between the e-world with the artificial world, the new world with the old world.
In the beginning of the first class, Erik wrote on the board:” the material without quality”. This is also in his book. I believe that the outcome of an interaction design has certain qualities. My question is that how can we create something with quality by using those materials without quality? The Erik said told me that it is wrong that material without quality. Now I think that maybe it depends on how can we define quality here.