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.

_