Deliberative Democracy and Difference
This project, I feel, doesn’t really fit in or belong in this site. Not that I think that it is poorly made or didn’t like the project. On the contrary – I think this is brilliantly created and very easy to use and helpful. What has been created with this project is a brilliant way to navigate text on the web very easily (much easier than most HTML webpages). I truly love this project and how they created everything very easy to read and navigate.
I do not agree with the Designer’s Statement (Alessandro Ceglia) when he refers to the project as a “relatively sophisticated system of interaction,” however. I do not believe this project is any more interactive then a book is. The ability to click on a link does not make something “interactive.” In the case of this project, it makes it convenient. Instead of having to turn the page of a book to a certain chapter or look up a reference inside the text is very convenient, and I believe this project is very well structured. But interactivity must engage the viewer in the medium. The project, on the other hand, gives the viewer less of a sense of the medium in its ability to navigate so easily.
In the Designer’s Statement, he also talks about how the project is loosely based on “Dungeons and Dragons,” and refers to the project as a “simulation.” Though I am not a huge fan of Dungeons and Dragons, I do not see the similarity, or how this project could be described as a “simulation.” I feel the designer has tried to make this project more than it is – which is a brilliantly easy way to navigate text – in his attempt to simplify it as well as to make it like a “choose your own adventure style simulation.”
I’m not discussing the text in this project for the fact that it has nothing to do with media of any kind – and is really about the philosophy of democracy – as interesting as that is. Fascinating article that I suggest reading. I do believe that the way it is presented is great. The design definitely compliments the article, and I’m glad the designer did not go through lengths to make the piece “interactive,” though I wish he would not have presented it like such, because it is not. Reading and navigation through the piece in this format rather than through adobe reader or a tradition webpage was much easier and more enjoyable, but as the liquid crystals in my flat-screen monitor strain my eyes, I would still rather read this article in a book than the way it is presented. But fascinating article and fascinating design. I plan on reading more of this 45 page masterpiece when it is not so near the end of the semester.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Yeah, it's just a paper, right? Clean, fluid. Your resistance to the presentation seems on the mark and seems to be about the reflex to interactivity. These days it may, like PowerPoint, feel necessary, an obligation. But to what end? As in here - when a book or an actual series of papers would serve just fine.
Or what is there any balance of elements that could work? Any additional components - or resistance to text, perhaps - that could have, quietly even, offered a site or series of screens that engaged the viewer differently? Asked the viewer to process or react to the series information differently?
With your consideration of these, what 4?, sites now on Vectors, any conclusions about the temptations or effectiveness of the modes here - of the difference, improvement, or lack there ofs - that they offer?
Good post - engaged, invested. Thanks for offering two posts here. But no reply to the survey? Is that anywhere?
Post a Comment