thanks to Dale for coming and showing his work to us. Schematic's work is clearly very professional, and it's nice to see commercial applications try and push the boundaries of what you can and can't do with interface design on television.

That being said, however, I think the whole idea of interactive television is very tricky, and it's good that people like Dale are thinking about it. I suppose I'm not entirely sold on the fact that piping exisiting television content into an interactive space is the way to go. I think it's essential for a larger collaboration to take place between t.v. production companies and interactive teams in order to make this stuff worthwhile.

The xbox collaboration might yield some interesting content, but for now, all I'm seeing is layering of graphic / pseudo interactive content on top of an existing space, and I'm not sold that this is better than just watching TV the way it is now. Television itself is not interactive, I would argue -- but that doesn't mean we can't create some new medium, part television, part game/interactive space, that would fit.

The nuevo TV guide stuff was visually stunning. The animations, graphics, etc. were really well done, but I'm not sure that this is the way I want to experience this stuff. Maybe with 500 channels, but even then. I'm sure that the networks are eating this stuff up though -- little branded worlds that exist in the TV guide, always on advertisements, etc. I guess I'm wondering if we can't do more than this with broadband television. And this isn't a knock on Scematic -- this is their business, and the people paying their bills eat this stuff up. Like Dale said, perhaps the work they are doing will, at best, help prime the tv audience for interactive experiences that aren't necessarily video games, but extended learning experiences: interactive documentaries etc.

Thanks to Dale I was enthralled by his progressive spatial interface design for Interactive TV. I would love to comb his brain more for insight into interface design. The blending of motion graphics and interface design is obvious in today’s world, I just didn’t make the connection until Dale brought it up.

What excited me most was his talk about the future of home-based interactive entertainment. Taking virtual sets, combining them with real actors and allowing real-time interaction for the home viewer/user. I hope Dale can come back sometime soon and drop some more of the future in our heads.

Channel surfing is so 20th century. Audiences are far too savvy these days to accept such a linear mode of navigation for very long. Does a modern TV system have to be 3D to be "non-linear"? I'm not sure. But I am willing to entertain innovative interface designs that utilize the z-axis. The biggest problem is that the TV screen is still a strictly 2D plane, the same issue that most computer game players have gotten over a long time ago. So how do we organize it all to serve the audience best?

Of course there will be filters and metadata... blah, blah, blah. But really: interface is the key and consistency is the challenge. I cannot imagine the average user attempting to adapt to a multiplicity of visual interfaces. It's annoying enough to have to figure out a different remote control with every television. Now we want audiences to transition between branded virtual worlds full of video content that differ drastically between sets and services? Once again, with great power comes great responsibility and restraint is a virtue. For all the cool effects, simple is still elegant.

TV must open the axes of space and time to viewer, although it may remain a linear medium narratively,

And inevitably we will all speak nostalgically of the days of flipping channels... but really, they're already gone and I'm glad.

Overall, I was impressed with what I saw and heard, but I have to say that the whole concept of interactive television is lost on me. The graphics and images were very cool and fun to watch, but it was too much. I actually enjoy channel surfing and having that image fill the whole screen. In the examples that we saw, there was too much going on on the screen. Understandably, televisions can be “rich media screens,” but why do they have to be filled with so much information? I have such a hard time absorbing any information when I watch any of the news channels, and in the end, I usually feel as if the half hour I spent watching that channel was a waste. While I may be the minority, I have the feeling that this may be the attitude of a large portion of the adult television watching population as well.

The concept of interactive television does seem like a good idea in regard to all of the information that can be available to the user, but there has to be another interface for it. The dimensional space and “remote control”/hand gestures interface that was present in the examples made sense, but it was a little disorienting for me. I think Dale mentioned redesigning the remote control during the lecture, and that might be a viable solution to the interface confusion. It seems a little odd to use a remote control usually meant for controlling a 2D space to control something that exists in a 3D world. The arrow button that Dale showed to control movement along the z-axis seemed logical, but why not a trackball or joystick?

I was impressed by the CSI and Battlestar Galactica examples but, again, there was too much going on in the viewing area. The added information in the CSI example seemed to go along with the content and helped make the story easier to follow, but I found myself focusing more on the main viewing area than the added content. On the other hand, the Battlestar Galactica example was very hard to follow especially when the show merged with the X-Box game. At that point I was totally lost and found myself not interested in it at all. The graphics and layouts in all of the examples were nicely designed and made the projects cohesive, but there was too much information to keep me focused. I guess interactive television is not for me.

Echoing my colleagues' comments, the work shown last week was quite impressive and inspiring. Just by thinking of the TV screen as a window into 3 dimensional space really opened my mind to the potentials for interface design.

Going off of what Stephanie said about the physical interface, I really am curious to know when the remote control will finally die as a "convenient" interface for your television. It's getting so cumbersome now, especially since media centers have become almost the norm. Herigstad's design concepts were so wonderful, but so limited by having to eventually deal with the klunky ol remote.

Yeah, I agree with Stephanie. When I'm watching TV, I DON'T WANT TO INTERACT--I want to sit there and stare at a full screen, full motion image and let my mind go numb. I think for me, that's the primary difference in my mind between my TV and my computer. If I want to interact, if I want all that additional info, I'll go to my computer. Heck, some of those features may actually be cool to have on a PC. But keep them off my TV! I watch TV to escape the computer.

Also, I have to say that I found it a bit disturbing that Mr. Herigstag had no remorse about increasing the potential for advertisers to throw ads at you. Even now, some channels will show a little animated commercial at the bottom of the screen during the show, and I HATE IT! TV for me is about escape, and these enhancements decrease the escape potential that this medium has for me.

The thing about television is that so many people have one, and the capability for mass communication is enormous (last time I checked, more people had a TV than indoor plumbing.) Successfully building an effective interactive element to even a portion of this huge audience/market would open up a gigantic range of possibilities. The temptation is to use a medium that just about everyone in the industrialized world is familiar with, the tricky part is integrating the newer, unfamiliar element.

One thing I kept thinking of was how much a remote control with better feedback would help navigating through an interactive interface. To be honest, the current remotes for digital cable I've used are barely fast or responsive enough to handle inputting three-digit channel numbers...the idea of playing a video game or even moving through a 3D menu on identical hardware gives me the shivers...I one could get a remote control as responsive as, say, a wireless video game controller, I think the interactive experience would be greatly enhanced.

Ahhh, a post where I have plenty to say :)

Dale's work as an interface designer is extremely necessary and interesting. Dale's comment that he is beginning to focus on content, is really where the feeble interactive television industry should be headed, people who can tie people's experiences together with intuitivie ways for them to react to it are the way to go.

As Mike was saying, there are a lot of people who do not want to interact with their television, they would much rather go to their computer for that information. But as Todd pointed out the television infiltration in this country is huge, whereas the computer in the home number, was last I checked, hovering around 30-40%. I think the prime audience for interactive television are that other 60% who don't have computers in their home but have, and love, their television. But then that creates several more problems, mainly, how do you design interfaces for people who may only use a computer at work, for Office, and get them to understand the concept of a z-axis? Or to intuit that they can "click" or move for more information? I think it's very exciting to have all these questions and try to figure it out. (eventual thesis perhaps?)

In terms of the advertiser's, in Dale's business as an interface designer, I don't see why he should make any distinction between advertising dollars and program doallars. In fact, advertising budgets are usually quite large, and I've found advertiser's are more likely to invest in something unique and ultimately risky because they're always focused on what's new to catch the consumer's eye. For Dale to choose not to assist advertiser's would be, to me, similar to the game industry telling the government, "no we're not going to make military simulations." Plus, advertisements now are 30 second annoying spots that you can't escape. But what if you could escape them, and delve deeper, and control it. See an ad for the car you want, and be able to see a 3D 360 degree view of it, get inside it, see it drive...much better then "zoom, zoom" in my opinion.

I think another problem in ITV is the enhancements, never really enhance the show. That's why I'd be interested to see what Dale's team, now that they are focusing some on content, and working with television productions, could produce for a comedy. Because what's really going to enhance a show, like say, Scrubs? Surely not descriptions of the medical procedures they talk about. or trivia, though that might be nice to stay connected to the show through the commercial breaks. What makes interaction useful in a 30 minute, plot-contrived, situational comedy?
Now if only I had the answer....

Thanks for Dale Herigstad coming and showing us his wonderful works. It's obvious that all these interface designs have been considered and tested for a long time.

I'm amazed by the neat and comfortable interface for the film searching program. And I really like the transition between real footage and the 3D shooting game. The design of control and not fully controled is very inspiring. With the control of shooting enemy's vessal, the story behind the gameplay is still going without disturbing.

For some reason, I don't like the TV enhancement, mainly because the disconnection between directors and the enhancement team. When they put some additional footage beside the original screen. It sometimes make the audience confuse and misunderstand the director's intention. I'm expecting the new program that Dale mentioned in which the enhancement team and director have direct connection.

I agree with Julie and Mike's opinion, interactive TV is still not mature. And the new age audience is more familiar withe the human-computer and game interactions. Instead of making TV more interactive, using X-box as a jumppad is a better solution. And with the input device a game platform supported, people could accept these interaction more easily.

Form follows function in Dale Herigstad’s interface designs. They are also beautifully executed as 2 and 3 dimensional works of art. His attention to the Z-axis is helpful when navigating through complicated spaces and/or profuse information. The grace and fluidity of the designs are reminiscent of a ballet and put the viewer/user into the seat of the choreographer.

One of the most interesting points Dale discussed the PBS approach to programming. The notion that a television show is an “entrée into richer and deeper content” is an encouraging sensibility and suggests a paradigm shift in the industry. This was something I was hoping for when I was working with Idealab and Z.com in the late 90s. I would love to work with a company like Schematic to evolve this idea and break new ground in interactive programming.

I have to applaud Schematic for doing some killer interface design. After having used the Comcast digital cable interface *shudder*, I'm very pleased to see a team working in this field that understands design so well.

I have concerns about inescapable advertising. I do not think the solution here is to always have crap popping up and interrupting an experience. It's fine for when your surfing or when you're in between content, or when it makes sense to have product placement in a certain type of show, but when it invades the experience of the content across the board it will be a sad day in media. Television needs to support itself and it's programming, but, um, frankly most of the programming is crap or just a rehash of old models. Making millions of dollars with invasive advertising, while at the same time largely churning out the same old tired crap is just wrong.

On the flip side, I mostly look forward to more personalized advertising. I'm not a prude, but if I never see blue liquid poured on a maxi-pad again, I’ll be a happy guy.

Interesting use of toolset's (Photoshop, Flash, AE), as their primary focus is on interface. I was surprised not to hear about code, but maybe some actions scripting (I would very much like a job doing this!)

Albeit a very interesting field, I was quite turned off by the aspect of television being so "busy". I was distracted for the most part and wished their was a nice big off button. Mike S brought up a good point about the director giving focus to a shot and to a sequence by use of many visual cues. I think that these interactive or "enhanced" television programs could only be successful by working in tandem with the director and D.P. Another question I thought might be interesting is how this "enhanced" television might fare with older shows. Could their be an outlet for things like "Lost in Space" or "Leave it to Beaver"? What about Jessica Parker and Murder She Wrote? Some venues really seem to play better with the idea of multiple eye stimulus at one time. I personally can't walk and chew gum at the same time, so doing anything "multitasking" is tough for me. Maybe I'm just the wrong target audience, but I thought about what my parents would do if I set this in front of them and let them have a go at it. I don't think the response would be a very good one. Lot's of confusion I think. My mother has enough trouble navigating a 2D Windows interface, the TV would probably kill her! Very good for a different generation of people maybe. Who knows. I did appreciate the attention to style and interface, as everything was very clean cut and very well layed out. A note about the advertising and branding (brought up in class later) that Will brought up was actually very significant. The idea was that the branding seemed a bit much, but I felt that solidified the 3D aspect in a much more familiar way. People know when they see the Fox Box on TV. They can't miss that. Giving them a Fox flavored GUI for that area of the navigation system makes it all that much more familiar. Something that my parents would at least be able to "grasp" or "latch on" to. Otherwise, for those that get lost in a 3D interface, it would have been a mishmosh of lines and windows, all seemingly the same thing (sound familiar? think windows!)

Good points however: Enjoyed the CSI mockup. Very intrigueing and interesting as the show is BASED on those little clues that they find and little scenarios that play out here and there. Added a nice dynamic to the show. Definitely works in that environment. Also enjoyed the game that was played out on an Xbox for Battlestar Galactica. Something that, to me, is a fundamental element in our quest to define Interactive Media as it stands in this department. A very interesting and intrigueing idea, well executed.

I agree with Mike Steffen about when I'm watching TV, I just want it to be a passive experience. It might be because I don't really watch TV that often, so when I do, it's mainly to let my body rest for a bit, or it might be due to social and cultural norms of having TV be an escape, but either way, TV is (for me) just a sit-down-and-watch experience. Because of that, I don't really see the interactive TV experience to be very appealing.

But I must also agree with everyone else that Dale's designs were probably some of the best I've seen so far for this arena. Much better than what we currently have out there . . .

I was very impressed by Dale's talk and I am extremely excited about interactive television and its many applications. I talked extensively with him after the presentation and I was pleased to hear that his definitions of interactive TV are very similar to my own understanding of the medium.

For one thing, he really does intend to have fully interactive content, meaning Schematic will use a modified remote control and hotspot rich video to call up additional information on any given subject, possibly anything in the video feed will be up for grabs.

I believe that it is extremely important in the creation of interactive TV to offer additional information and not pieces which are essential to the enjoyment of a particular feed. I explained my midterm idea to Dale and he thought it was a very interesting propostion to offer the ability to pause the live feed much like TIVO, when a person clicks on a hotspot to gain additional info.

Dale's and Schematic's material is, and I agree with Jason on this one, probably some of the best I have seen in this arena. Content which could conceivably bridge the gap between TV and games and offer much more than just a vehicle for passive marketing.