The discussions that followed Glen's last post (and probably this week's as well) seem strangely ominous in hindsight. It seems all too easy to move from last week's discussion over the poststructuralist notion of the interpellated and unstable subject within digital modes of information and into the fear within the 1990s of the loss of control of the author/producer. Hmmm . . . did someone actually put this reading list together with some sort of successive thought in mind?
Anyway, control of the text seemed to be a dominant theme in this week's readings, as it should be leading to the production of our first project, web sites, etc. Half-following Nancy Kaplan, who in Chapter One of Evolving Perspectives on Computers and Composition Studies juxtaposed the pervading theories of technological and social determinism, Patricia Sullivan chose the path of the former in "Taking Control of the Page." Or perhaps I should say it (technological determinism) chose her.
I can't help but wonder how these texts (e.g., Sullivan's, for now) were read and used (since we're talking about the user) when first published. From the future they read as creating (sustaining?) a great fear that this absolute control over a text (or image)--something that poststructuralists and others who never associated themselves with such terminology have been critical of for a while now (as Sturken and Cartwright are smart to point out)--would somehow create a major paradigm shift. And to be fair, no doubt there has been a paradigm shift of sorts because of the new technologies and continual wider access to them. Really, I'm not sure why I read "the fear" in Sullivan's text, in particular. Perhaps it is the use of adjectives like "dark" to describe technology taking over an ill-prepared writer's text right from under his or her fingers. And while I am sure these new publishing technologies have changed the industry, I question whether this absolute authorial control (or at least responsibility for the control) has actually taken place to the extent she feared. For example, to those of us (RCIDers teaching 103) who were fortunate enough to take part in the presentation of the chosen Clemson 103 textbook and handbook by the author and co. (and I do mean "company"), I ask, was the presentation under the control of just one person? For me it felt very corporate (including the well-tanned bureaucrat in tow), not that that is necessarily a bad thing. Or maybe there is more to this social determinism thing than we think.
Nevertheless, for all my politicking about how we should pay more attention to Continental philosophy and others, I must admit, sadly, that a text like Jesse James Garrett's The Elements of User Experience may do more for the acceptance of the sense of the death of the author (or "producer" as Sturken and Cartwright posit) in the pedagogue, the marketer, the web site designer, etc. than a whole host of critical theory books every will.
One of the coolest things about what Garrett's doing--albeit in a much more sterile way than the many thought-provoking images Sturken and Cartwright analyze)--is he is promoting the notion that the creation of a text with a stable meaning whose interpretation should always go back to the intention of the author, should be forgotten, or at least is ill-perceived. Focusing on the concept of user experience as the key to strong and effective web design, I daresay, should change how one thinks about communication, rhetoric, and audience control of a text, in general—whether hip to postmodernism or not. (I do have concerns about this knowledge seemingly (mythically) being produced within and for a capitalist ideology, but that's for another discussion.)
Again, this is getting so wordy for a blog, IMHO. Let me quickly show you what I meant above by placing Garrett’s name with critical theorists. The following quotes and ideas come from Marita Sturken and Lisa Cartwright’s Practices of Looking: An Introduction to Visual Culture, and yet could they be applied to Garrett’s description of user experience?
“Reading and interpreting images is one way that we, as viewers, contribute to the process of assigning value to the culture in which we live” (46).
“The viewer or consumer has emerged as the locus of creative production" (89).
Sure, a few words here and there could be shifted around, but there are a lot of similarities going on here, and from very different camps. Food for thought?
Lastly, I want to throw some questions at/to you all. Though I thoroughly enjoyed Sturken and Cartwright’s theoretical approach to deciphering visual media, I took(take) issue with their word choice(s). Does anyone else have issues with the constant “re” in everything? Reproduction, representation, etc. I know they are appropriating this from Stuart Hall (whom I admire greatly), but I ask, is there no more room for productions and presentations anymore? Or are they thrown out with the death of the producer? Maybe it is just a matter of language? Doesn’t the “re” in everything allude to an original somewhere that they would argue never existed? Or if it did exist, is it in the form of social and cultural processes that are in actuality overdetermined in meaning, and thus unstable as well? In this case shouldn't ideology have a "re" in it? Is all just parody to them, or pastiche? It seems to be pastiche, in the postmodern/postmarxist tradition; however, if all is pastiche, wouldn’t everything be representation, and therefore, nothing be? Perhaps they explained this and I missed it, but the term sounds so Platonic. I’m riffing off of last week again, to some extent, but any thoughts on the word play? Next time I promise not to end with questions.
While I think that Garrett is focused on the user, I don't feel that it is completely at the expense of the maker. In the discussion of strategy, he talks about how goals need to be developed for the user and for the maker. What are your goals/your purpose in creating this site? And how does that relate to the viewer/user?
ReplyDeleteGarrett is pointing out that we have been ignoring the user experience, or the audience in the rhetorical triangle. And that in ignoring the audience, our way of creating is changed. By thinking about the author, audience, and text, we can have a much more useful product.
Regarding your question, I certainly wish to review and revisit whether, remarkably, a "capitalist mercenary" (alleged) nature of User Experience in some way lessens the value of UX scholarship.
ReplyDeleteTo quote Victor from the first Octolog: nes, yo :). Kidding aside, I'd argue against such an attack strongly.
Word(plAy) aside, I'll move onto a few "reflections" brought to bear by your comments. I'll start (logically, or should I say logos-ly) at the end.
Sullivan certainly takes a "give and take" view of technology's influence on writing. For instance, she comments "the writer can control most aspects of the publication, within the limits of available equipment" (50). So the news is good, right? Not quite. She invokes Ong in observing that technology "remakes" the way we think (45). The heart of this apparent conflict is best summarized on page 47 ("...a natural conflict emerges..."). There's a good reason she spends the end of her article asking questions. She sees promise and threat. Exposing the possibilities in the context of the threats is (well, was) required to move the field forward.
These questions were necessary for the time. We now take for granted technology at every chair in the classroom. Contextualizing the present via the past is a way to shape the future. (Don't make me talk Heidegger here!!! I'll do it!!!!!) Remember y2k? Circa 1998, it was certainly a hotly discussed topic. It may be an interesting article to explore the rhetoric of Y2K 1994-2002, for instance. Laughter works well sometimes.
Applying this to UX...the same arguments mentioned by Jared can be made against writing instruction in general. Would we fear to promote literacy (new, digital, or traditional print) because the student is in a business program? I hope not. UX is usable for, well, anything. We could talk about the layout of a museum with these principles. Chances are, whatever display so designed would be the better for it. Much like Rhetoric can be employed by and employed by "bad" people doing "bad" things, so too can UX. To attack UX on the grounds listed would be highly Platonic (in the "traditional reading" sense, and just as flawed).
Food for thought...does UX created an updated "Q" Question? Is the immaculate UX-er also a good person designing well?
As you said, it absolutely seems that Sullivan take technological determination on her writing. On the other side, I am just wondering if there are recently any people who can get out of technological deterministic perspective. I mean they can't help but accept and use new technologies. Otherwise they can also reject them, but both cases arise from new tech. I want to criticize that we have been being tending to mainly focus on how to use new techniques developed since UCC(user-created content) showed up. I feel we are playing in any given frame which existing power structure (such as hardware or software companies) has made. We would use more easily a computer but it might mean that we are more subject to technological system built by invisible power.
ReplyDeleteEmily basically hit the point I wanted to say (but her comment is more concise. She was thinking of the audience with little time to read. Not me. So here I go). I didn't read a paradigm shift in Garrett. He’s saying that web designers are often bad rhetors because they do not consider their audience.
ReplyDeleteWhen I read Garrett, I was reminded of some trends in museum design, especially by Ralph Applebaum.
The focus of his design is not on the content of the exhibit, but the experience the user (tourist) has in the space. You enter and exit rooms in very controlled sequence. You are directed thought the space. You are given options of interactive features, but all of those features reinforce a preconceived narrative or objective the museum wants to convey. Yes, the focus has shifted from displaying text to creating experiences, but that doesn’t mean the designer has lost control. Most people in museum studies would argue that these museums maintain MORE CONTROL. These museums, as well as almost all websites, are precisely defined user experiences that support the objectives of the institution.