Thought about semantics

Most of the cognition is indicated by people's actions within the context. That is called the meaning people made it constantly. Krippendorff[1] maintains the semantic would not be recognized without the setting, he got to sort out the appropriate form from the four element of context – operational context, sociolinguistic context, context of genesis and ecological context. Sound like you need get more formulation to your design thinking, not just one. It was also that if a form is given by the knowledge of linguistic, you probably work out very effectively in product.

For the outward appearance being known, however, I also take what people said ‘pulled it loose’. It's meant that mind always come with actions, so leading the function gets a lot of ways by your activity which could be used to what we make known to the outside world. That point prefers to make user interface much 'opening' or 'embodied'. Actually, I don’t even care of what the meaning in form is conveyed in precise, but how rich perception people makes with a product.

update at... 05/01/11


Reference:
[1] Krippendorff, K., 1995, “One the essential contexts of artifacts or on the proposition that “design is making sense (of things)””, in V. Margolin and R. Buchanan (eds.), The idea of design: A Design Issues, MIT Press, pp.156-184.

Embodiment 7: about semantics

I gone and enjoyed listening to the conference on design to the semantics section at NTUST about two months ago. The topic had treatises from kinds of domain, including product, graphic and fashion. Even if their expounding made the difference to each other, they did good opening our mind to receive.

Since we’d like to discuss about that, some people had inclination to separate between the visual perceptual and physical interaction just because of our view being prior to the motion. Said that user could make up of meaning in its metaphorical form by triggered doing.

I don’t know what to make of that. Maybe they thought countenance could be good solution for user to interpretation. Suppose its rule we followed led us this, how interaction would that be? It’s probably interesting I reckon, while I wonder if it just the way we got, it seems like an awful waste of movement. Also, we must lose some opportunity to utilize our conditions. Naoto Fukasawa[1] hold oppressing human behavior via design would pull it loose which bear on environments to all the others. So that it seems not to be a good idea.

Like cognition against emotion long time ago, it may be no point discussing what the fasten sense is likely to be. I just think we’re much tired of electronic products recognized by sight. Apart from the way we always want to put it, it will be great perception in imagining how semantic would that be, isn’t?


Reference:
[1] Goto T, Sasaki M, Fukasawa N (2004) The Ecological Approach to Design. Jia-Xi Books, Tokyo.

_