Interactive media asks us to identify with someone else's mental structure...the computer user is asked to follow the mental trajectory of the new media designerThis quote from The Myth of Interactivity is at the crux of Len Manovich's argument. Is interactivity just a ruse to get us to feel more involved? In my personal opinion:...well its not so black and white. Yes, I agree with Manovich in saying that in the end we are at the mercy of the designer and that they are creating the tunnel through which we funnel our intellect and mental energy. However, it is also true that the user chooses to go to that website, he/she chooses what to click on and how long to stay on the site itself. The designer needs the user just as much as the user needs the designer. It is simple supply and demand, and a perfect example of a symbiotic relationship.
I think that when Manovich says that the user follows the "mental trajectory of the new media designer" he is only considering certain types of new media and he does not fully grasp the breadth of the new media world. It should be noted though that this work was published in 2002 so we can not totally put Manovich to task for his dismissive view on new media. It is entirely possible that at the time that new media, and the internet in particular, was in its infancy. It is highly likely that interactivity at the level that we are used to now was no more than a myth. 2002, this is before myspace and facebook, it is before youtube, it is before the exponential growth of the blogosphere; new media has evolved dramatically in the past eight years.
Lets see just how interactive websites can be today:
First: anyfilms
This is a fantastically designed and conceived concept for a website. What it really does is appeal to the average computer user's desire to have a place in movies and control what they see. The second person narrative, which is so rarely used, is now at the users fingertips. 11,000 options according to the website. Thats 11,000 movies that a user can, if given the time and a lack of things to do, through his/her own volition. How is that for interactivity Manovich? True, the designer of the website created all of the outcomes him/herself. But does that change the user's ability to interact with the results? Does it make his power any less potent and real? I would say no. The designers objective is the please the user and the user's objective is to be pleased, they need to interact in order to achieve their objective. That is pure interactivity at its finest.
A lesser example of interactivity, and one that is completely in keeping with Manovich is the 2008 year in ideas, published by the New York Times. As mckenna pointed out, there is no motivation for the user to scroll through the different options except for some innate desire to learn more. And who does that? The New York Times, which is notoriously and embarrassingly unable to keep up with the progression of new media, thinks that by allowing the user to click while staying on the same page, that they are introducing a theme of interactivity. What they are really doing is fooling the user into thinking that they are given choices to the outcome of the site. In the end, the information is completely dictated by the New York Times. There are choices, yes, but they are limited and don't change from user to user.
F is for fail (nyt.com)
Witty response Jordan- Love the 'F is for Fail' sign off
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree more- Out of the lineup of sites, the NY times stands at the end of the interactive continuum: the flaccid end. Perhaps this is too harsh of a statement, but a site that proposes interactivity via links to colorful letters of the alphabet definitely deserves a 1 out of 10. The "Year in Ideas 2008" seems to be made half-heartedly, a pathetic attempt to exhibit innovation through the categorization of titles of ridiculous ideas. There is a better way to allow readers to engage with articles like "Dog-Poop DNA Bank" but perhaps the fundamental problem is the fact that articles like these make it onto the site, which, let me remind you, is the New York Times. I expected more New York, I expected more.
I agree with you both that this particular New York Times site is a bit flaccid in regards to interactivity. And it is strange to me that they call this site one of their interactive features. However, I think it’s important to ask ourselves whether or not interactivity is something that the designers and creators of the page really thought was necessary. And, going along with that, what is their idea of interactivity. Does it necessarily have to be done through commenting? Maybe interactivity could just be reading posts and establishing some sort of relationship with the author. Although I believe that interactivity is an important aspect of new media, there are sites that I go to solely to read articles and be entertained. I don’t feel as if, as the user, I need to always have the option to comment and “interact” with the site. Sometimes it’s nice to relax and read without feeling an obligation to browse through other people’s comments and opinions. This particular site is part of the NY Times Magazine, which is actually incredibly interactive. Some of the recent posts have more than 500 comments. I don’t think that the “Year in Ideas 2008” site is made half-heartedly at all. Some of those authors are people that I search out on NY Times solely because I love their writing. Although the ideas may be ridiculous, they are entertaining. And although we might not think that the site is interactive (I agree that it’s really not), it could just be that we expect too much out of websites in regards to interactivity.
ReplyDelete