So a month back there was a little contest at work to who could make an awesome music video using a RB2 song. Needless to say, some coworkers and I threw a little something together. 
Enjoy!
Monthly Archive for June, 2009
In watching the presentation for Google Wave, a new product in the works by Google, a feature that was demonstrated (and applauded) made me question when designing features for users undoes some of the benefits that individual terminals affords the user.
For those of you who don’t know, Google Wave is aiming to be the next evolution of online communication. From what I have seen so far, it seems to be a consummation of email, message boards, and chat, forcing users to no longer think of online communication as individual collections of messages and responses, but a cluster of ongoing conversations, where individuals can enter and leave at will.
The feature that piqued my interest, was the feature that turns the conversation into a chat, and allows both users to see the conversations being typed by each other in real time. While this could be very useful for conversing with someone who typed painfully slowly, it changes the way users have generally used instant messaging up until now.
Instant Messaging serves as a platform to allow generally, two people to have a conversation with each other in “real time”, where one user sends a message, the other responds, etc, in the same way that you and I may have a face-to-face conversation. If you wanted to map the features one-to-one, then while you are talking to me in person, I will be listening to your statement, and thinking about what I want to say in response, this is the same as reading your message in an IM, and typing my response in my client.
However, lets say you and I are having an in-depth conversation, or debate, on either medium. We make take our time to collect our thoughts, to consider our responses, and figure out what we want to say next. We may even completely change our response we had originally planned in order to answer some new topic that has come up. Either way, this can be afforded to us in IM clients by typing out our responses and looking them over before we send them off.
While I agree that when talking to someone over instant message, the time waiting for a response can seem length. However, almost all clients today will notify the receiving person that you are typing, alerting that there is indeed a conversation taking place. The question begs then, how do users react to a feature that allows us to see the response of a person, as it is being created?
While this is an interesting feature in it of itself, it could do one of a few things:
- Bring users closer to the experience of having a true conversation through text.
- Users would be distracted by the other person typing a response, or follow up message to what they just sent, and it would cause confusion.
- A new rule of “internet etiquette” would appear within the use of this tool, and you would patiently wait for others to finish their thought before you start typing your response.
Google will offer a checkbox to turn this feature off, and it will be interesting to see how the response to this feature is received. Within innovation, one will ultimately be forcing adopters to rethink or retool their processes in order to adopt a new technology. It’s important to consider what the processes you are “fixing”, because maybe they weren’t broken, but a matter of course from the translation of a process from one medium to the next.
A coworker was kind enough to procure a copy of “The Game Design Reader: A Rules of Play Anthology
The first entry I ended up jumping to seemed like an awesome start; “The Definition of Play and The Classification of Games” by Roger Caillios, 1958“. I was able to find the full version of the document, and uploaded it for reference, or the curiosity of others.
Important to note, games of chance are excluded. [This is a] discussion about games and rules when profit is not obtained, and it is merely the existence of the absence of reality. (p.124)
While it was not an article that redefined what I thought of “play” as a individual and social construct, it was interesting to see how the observations of a document in 1958 translates to electronic entertainment in the modern day.
Play is an occasion of pure waste: waste of time, energy, ingenuity, skill, and often money for the purchase of [gaming] equipment… (p.125)
The industry may not be so quick to agree, but this rings true if wasted time is seen as a reflection of not accruing income. However, most if not all would agree that if play results in some form of entertainment, time and money may have been well spent.
A game which one would be forced to play would at once cease being play. It would become constraint, drudgery from which one would strive to be freed. (p.125)
I found this quote quite humorous with regards to my job, and I know some QA testers that might agree, I can’t say I “strive to be freed” from the games I play at work.
“In fact, the game is no longer pleasing to one who, because he is too well trained or skillful, wins effortlessly and infallibly.”
(In classifying games of sport) The goal of the encounters is not for the antagonist to cause serious injury to his rival, but rather to demonstrate his own superiority. (p. 132)
Both of these remind me of what the inherent draws in competitive gaming that kept such a stranglehold on me.
“Industrial civilization has given birth to [...] the hobby, a secondary and gratuitous activity, undertaken and pursued for pleasure, e.g. collecting, unique accomplishments, the pleasure in [...] inventing gadgets…” (pg. 145)
Did he just predict Achievements and LittleBigPlanet?
