Prewriting Process-Phenomenology & Reactable

Reactable Interaction

I started out just writing out keywords and major ideas we’ve had about phenomenology so far-things like intersubjectivity, ethnomethodology, and authors like Dourish and Metz. At the same time I had a couple of “concrete examples” that I find interesting. When I looked at the two parts together(theory & example), one of my concrete examples seemed to dominate so I went with that one. I can’t say that I’m at a stage where I have a very specific concrete direction for the paper we’re never going to write, but the process did help me organize and narrow focus.

I wanted to find a way to combine the reactable with phenomenology. A couple ways I did this was to look at intersubjectivity, ethnomethodology and the concept of “common sense”, and the implication of media’s influence on message(s) in Metz’s concept of the Impression of Reality, specifically “tangible computing” (Dourish) and “tangible user interfaces” (taken from Roedl’s Realism in HCI post). Initially, the paper would be devoted to playing with these topics, and their definitions, then would look at the reactable and its intentions (taken from its creators) with respect to these concepts.

Then I thought it would be pretty cool to take the original Moog modular synthesizer and apply the same phenomenological concepts to it and compare the two results. Identify an evolution of sorts, if there is one, especially with regard to user-, technology-, and human- centered designs. Also perhaps identify any pattern(s) and generalize it/them to technological developments-one example that comes to mind is the first computer(no GUI) vs. today’s models.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s