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.

_

Embodiment 6: about emtion

“Emotions are inseparable from and a necessary part of cognition. Everything we do, everything we think is tinged with emotion, much of it subconscious. In turn, our emotions change the way we think, and serve as constant guides to appreciate behavior, steering us away from the bad, guiding us toward the good”(cited in [1], p. 7).

If Norman[1] said emotions was an essentially integral part of the cognition, why should we just use the semantic or metaphor for erecting the meaning only to image or form? It goes without saying that they're deeply interpreting activities which need more thinking and reflection. In other words, there are many things about what we learn in use. Also, the new trend lays more stress on memorized information of structure and location to the display that spreads out all over the electronic product. Nowadays, we gain the more feeling of burden than stead by using them.

Remember that when we went to the museum, every plate evidenced ‘don’t touch ’ nearby the art which let us just look in far away distance. However, the products we talk about usability, aesthetics and perception can’t be detached from the acting. Most importantly, the action not just we do, but we make how we feel and know － the expression of emotions bearing on both human communication and products directly. I’m more than sure we should make use of them for design.


Reference:
[1] Norman DA (2004) Emotional design : why we love (or hate) everyday things. Basic books, New York.

_