where creative exists

We talked about people creating based on preexisting items instead of creating a brand new object in lass week on Jeff's class.

I could not stop think something about Cost-Benefit analysis. Let’s think about movie industry for a while and think which good movie has no followed serial II, III or even VI?

A professor for my another class gave us some numbers when she talked about Cost-Benefit Analysis:
The Lord of the Rings:
The fellowship of the ring Budget is $109M the profit is $860.7M
The Two Towers Budget is $94 the profit is $920.5
The Return of the king Budget is $94 the profit is $1129.2

Why the 3rd could spend less money and get more profit then the first one? I guess it is because the accumulated reputation from the first and second.

Couldn’t the directors come up some new characters and scenarios to make totally new ones instead of serial II, III? The answer is yes,they could. But why they need to create a totally new one??? If the new one could not guarantee a success?

If the numerical representation, modularity and automation makes the “creative process” easier， more efficient and productive, why we are always looking for totally authentic creative?

On the other hand, even though it is not authentic creative, I believe that creative exists somewhere when you make a choice, a judgment. How could things could re-used in a totally different order. Creative was invented by a more smooth way and evolved over time and by different people consciously or unconsciously. When we look back thirty years, we could find the huge difference between what we have now and at that time, even though we don’t think there is something new compared with things we used yesterday.

From shopping experience to syntagm

I was thinking about shopping experience last night, (just for fun, and sometimes when I could not fall asleep, I do this kind of brain exercise), maybe it is very directly related with your post, sorry about this.

For traditional shopping, the store “designers” promote their business by design some routes or certain strategies. For example, milk was always put the another end of the store with the door or cashier desk, because they know much people buy milk when they shopping at a grocery store. This route strategy force customers to go through a bunch of other items, and attract them buy more things. Especially there is always something at the middle of the aisles. So go through some items maybe people don’t necessary needed becomes a part of the syntagm of shopping experience. And it seems that there is something similar with movie director’s camera. Both of them just put things there to force you to think about it or accept it.

For online shopping, because there is tool called “Search”, we could get whatever we want more directly and instantly. However, the “store” designers didn’t give up to attract us into their trap，knowing as we did that on line shoppers don’t always have a clear idea about what they are looking for. The designers model the traditional shopping experience by using the margin spaces and put their items in a specific list order at the left panel of their website I guess.

What I am really trying to articulate is that the syntagm is not always very economically logical. It means that we could always disorder or add something redundant and make the syntagm bigger and beneficial for “us”–maybe someone sells the paradigms, movie director, store manager…

I was thinking about shopping experience last night, (just for fun, and sometimes when I could not fall asleep, I do this kind of brain exercise), maybe it is very directly related with your post, sorry about this.

For traditional shopping, the store “designers” promote their business by design some routes or certain strategies. For example, milk was always put the another end of the store with the door or cashier desk, because they know much people buy milk when they shopping at a grocery store. This route strategy force customers to go through a bunch of other items, and attract them buy more things. Especially there is always something at the middle of the aisles. So go through some items maybe people don’t necessary needed becomes a part of the syntagm of shopping experience. And it seems that there is something similar with movie director’s camera. Both of them just put things there to force you to think about it or accept it.

For online shopping, because there is tool called “Search”, we could get whatever we want more directly and instantly. However, the “store” designers didn’t give up to attract us into their trap，knowing as we did that on line shoppers don’t always have a clear idea about what they are looking for. The designers model the traditional shopping experience by using the margin spaces and put their items in a specific list order at the left panel of their website I guess.

What I am really trying to articulate is that the syntagm is not always very economically logical. It means that we could always disorder or add something redundant and make the syntagm bigger and beneficial for “us”–maybe someone sells the paradigms, movie director, store manager…

How could HCI designer use syntagm?

I believe it is very useful for game designers to lead those gamers to jump into those scenarios one by one and feel very novel and exciting about the game.

I am sure there is a lot of more areas could benefit from excellent handling about syntagm, and hope I could come back to this post later.

why do we concern about theories when we deal with practical things

In today's class, someone asked a very interesting, serious and tricky question: "why should we concern about all those theories as HCI designers supposed to work in a very practical field. I felt interesting because I was asking similar question when I read Roger's paper (A reading for today's class, Rogers, Yvonne, (2005) “New Theoretical Approaches for HCI”, ARIST: Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, no 38, 2004. ). My question was: "Are the HCI research community and industry community living in different ages?" Are those super good theories used in all kinds of labs and projects in some universities and colleges or some company ? How many companies are really using ethnographic methods to do their projects with dealing with their clients? I am asking these question not because the paper is not good, in fact, it is excellent paper, and I love it so much! I love the paper because it could trigger my thinking.

I agree that theories provide a common language to let people communicate and discuss the issues in the field. More generally speaking, how could people in the HCI field understand each other by using those same terms or "languages". It could make sense to each of us in the field. Theories provide tools for us to understand the reality situation a design involved in and critique research and designs done by others.

However, seriously, do we do research on theories because of the fear of handling the uncertain? Is it because we are trying to add more certain factors or trying to find an excuse of our responsibility to a design? Does it mean that we are not very confidence about our design ability?

When an "aha" idea comes up and the designer have 100% confidence about her design and its successful future, she could broke all the rules and theories and whatever. Even further, maybe she just creates a totally new theory! Who knows?! WHY? However, the "aha" idea doesn't come up with itself. It comes from the designer's knowledge, judgment, insight and her philosophies. Where these things come from, reflection-on-action? OR theories!

We need theories because we want to make fast designs. What do I mean fast design?
Since we have human society, thousands years ago, we are keeping to design things, all kinds of things, tools, organizations, etc. But thousands years ago, we don't have a lot of theories. For a single tool design, for example, a shovel, it design process maybe last for hundreds of years. Its designers and also users were always looking for better materials and changing forms. This kind of design process mend together with the product using process as well as usability test and redesign process. Therefore, the fast design means that we as both designers and users don't want to wait and go through with the very long design process. We need it now! And I guess my conclusion is that this is the theories for--to condense the design process.

Portfolio site interpretation –final paper idea

I know my portfolio site is so terrible, but I just get a headache when I think about to make a new one, because that two words–portforlio site means maybe more than ten hour work! But finally, I could not tolerate anymore! I felt shame when I look at it and call myself a designer. Yesterday, I finally decided to make some change on it. When I looked around on others’ portfolio site, and lots of free templates, I got an idea about my final paper.

The idea is I’d like to analysis some portfolio sites by using structuralism and phenomenology theories from designer’s perspective.

Just like Lacy’s paper, I want to analysis portfolio sites by discussing the relationship between style, color with the professional field the owner in. And also how and why sounds becomes popular in a website. Is there different visual angles (virtual camera?) ? Or let’s say, where is the focus suppose to be? How big our screen the designers think we are using? Do you have some other ideas about this?—PLEASE tell me!

How do you think this idea? I have no idea about what kind of conclusion will I get, but is it necessary? Could I just analysis they way portfolio sites were created, the strategies and theories people are using to create portfolio sites and get a brief conclusion? Should I really come out a guild line of how to create portfolio site at the end?