Michael Sennott

‹Backchannel 11/› http://interactive.usc.edu/members/abalsamo/archives/2009/11/imd_forum_for_111109_sha_xin_wei.html
11/11/2009 18:20:32 ‹Seminar› http://topologicalmedia.ab.net/joomla/main/index.php
11/11/2009 18:21:22 ‹Mike› http://topologicalmedialab.net/joomla/main/index.php
11/11/2009 18:21:50 ‹Seminar› http://topologicalmedialab.net/joomla/main/index.php
11/11/2009 18:23:08 ‹Mike› http://www.getty.edu/art/exhibitions/viola/
11/11/2009 18:24:39 ‹Jade› observe the homo sapiens rex as it devours its prey. The chimp raptors will have to wait their turn.
11/11/2009 18:25:26 ‹ndef› What is the motivation for designing systems as non-humans or for non-humans?
11/11/2009 18:26:14 ‹caravaggio› i don't think its possible to design from a non human POV
11/11/2009 18:26:24 ‹caravaggio› unless you ask a non human to make choices
11/11/2009 18:28:10 ‹caravaggio› don't all turing complete languages have the same capabilities?
11/11/2009 18:29:14 ‹ndef› Yeah, but they lend themselves to different things. I think it's less a matter of possibilities and more a matter of how you tend to work in concert with the tool.
11/11/2009 18:29:46 ‹caravaggio› i hear that lisp is designed for non humans
11/11/2009 18:30:07 ‹KylaG› Lisp was designed for clams and clam-shaped beings.
11/11/2009 18:31:40 ‹Seminar› http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thick_description
11/11/2009 18:33:19 ‹MAnnetta› Much like Game Hats!
11/11/2009 18:33:28 ‹Mike› http://f0.am/tgarden/
11/11/2009 18:38:28 ‹ndef› Were those theatrical spaces designed for humans or not?
11/11/2009 18:38:38 ‹ndef› I don't think I have a sense of what that term means.
11/11/2009 18:38:52 ‹caravaggio› i think the idea was to make humans feel like something other than human
11/11/2009 18:40:27 ‹Seminar› http://cjournal.concordia.ca/archives/20090212/labcoats_and_beakers_try_lights_and _speakers.php
11/11/2009 18:40:53 ‹Seminar› http://cjournal.concordia.ca/archives/20090212/labcoats_and_beakers_try_lights_and_speakers.php
11/11/2009 18:44:06 ‹KylaG› I feel like these projects would be good to look at when considering the relationship between immersion and fun.
11/11/2009 18:44:47 ‹ndef› What do you think we gain when we strip away models of user intention and user state?
11/11/2009 18:46:13 ‹caravaggio› can you do that? users will always intend something, the system may be able to change the possibility space of those intentions
11/11/2009 18:46:59 ‹KylaG› Is exploration an intention?
11/11/2009 18:47:19 ‹Mike› http://www.topologicalmedialab.net/joomla/main/content/blogcategory/4/19/lang,en/
11/11/2009 18:47:21 ‹Seminar› http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier-Stokes_equations
11/11/2009 18:47:34 ‹caravaggio› any concious motivation for action is intention isn't it?
11/11/2009 18:47:54 ‹ndef› I think he's talking about "non-syntactic" systems that map input to output in a continuous way, rather than privilaging some behaviors.
11/11/2009 18:48:05 ‹ndef› Is that what he's talking about?
11/11/2009 18:48:35 ‹caravaggio› if it is possible for the user to understand the relationship between their behavior and the systems response they can express intention
11/11/2009 18:48:38 ‹KylaG› I feel like "intention" gives the impression that you're trying to do something in particular, whereas exploration is just trying things to see what the response is.
11/11/2009 18:48:51 ‹KylaG› But that's a fairly subjective definition, I suppose.
11/11/2009 18:49:54 ‹KylaG› So what he's talking about, then, is the transition in the human mind between exploration and intention.
11/11/2009 18:49:59 ‹KylaG› ?
11/11/2009 18:50:17 ‹caravaggio› isn't exploration predicated on the desire to know what something is like?
11/11/2009 18:51:04 ‹ndef› Upon encountering an unfamiliar system, the natural response (human response?) is to explore, in order to build a cognitive model of the system. Yes?
11/11/2009 18:51:30 ‹caravaggio› yes, but all of our behavior is 'natural'
11/11/2009 18:52:11 ‹ndef› Yeah. I'm trying to relate this back to his idea of non-humanity, which I still don't totally understand.
11/11/2009 18:52:16 ‹MAnnetta› But isn't the human response to buld that cognitive model off of older, established models?
11/11/2009 18:52:41 ‹ndef› Yeah, probably.
11/11/2009 18:53:06 ‹caravaggio› i guess the question is can we be something other than what we are?
11/11/2009 18:53:16 ‹caravaggio› and then are we ourselves?
11/11/2009 18:53:41 ‹MAnnetta› It goes back to the definition of "what we are" so we can see "what we are not"
11/11/2009 18:54:01 ‹caravaggio› right
11/11/2009 18:54:14 ‹caravaggio› it goes without saying that we can't be anything that is outside of what human is
11/11/2009 18:54:18 ‹caravaggio› because we are human
11/11/2009 18:54:34 ‹caravaggio› unless we cease to be human in a substantial way
11/11/2009 18:54:46 ‹KylaG› I was thinking maybe it was the difference between working with something humans understand cognitively, versus working with things we feel intuitively?
11/11/2009 18:54:47 ‹caravaggio› at which point we would be something that used to be human that may remember that POV
11/11/2009 18:55:08 ‹KylaG› "Human" vs. "The World" in the sense of "cognitive" vs. "emotive"?
11/11/2009 18:55:32 ‹KylaG› But I could also be completely wrong.
11/11/2009 18:55:39 ‹caravaggio› that sounds like different aspects of human existance
11/11/2009 18:55:40 ‹ndef› Based on the theatrical stuff that we're seeing, however, this work seems to be all about building cognitive models.
11/11/2009 18:56:21 ‹caravaggio› if we can build a model of any sort of process or system in our head, its functioning is a part of our cognition
11/11/2009 18:56:53 ‹caravaggio› i think what he's talking about neccessarily involves building systems that are beyond our understanding
11/11/2009 18:57:23 ‹ndef› What does that get us, as designers?
11/11/2009 19:01:04 ‹KylaG› Well, it gives us an interesting understanding of human cognition.
11/11/2009 19:01:20 ‹KylaG› That lets us understand how people will experience and learn about our games and systems.
11/11/2009 19:01:23 ‹ndef› 1. Live, face to face experience; 2. Eliminate language; 3. Blur the line between actor and spectator.
11/11/2009 19:02:21 ‹ndef› What exactly is the difference between rich and complicated?
11/11/2009 19:02:49 ‹caravaggio› rich indicates quality and complicated indicates complexity
11/11/2009 19:03:04 ‹ndef› Quality according to what measure?
11/11/2009 19:03:17 ‹KylaG› So it sounds like the "non-human" aspect here is the reactive environment.
11/11/2009 19:03:19 ‹caravaggio› that is not indicated
11/11/2009 19:03:41 ‹caravaggio› people still designed the reactive environment
11/11/2009 19:04:04 ‹caravaggio› doesn't that make it human?
11/11/2009 19:04:37 ‹ndef› And design it specifically so that it will be properly reactive to humans, even if it isn't deliberately model-based.
11/11/2009 19:05:23 ‹KylaG› No, you just design it so it will be reactive in general.
11/11/2009 19:05:33 ‹KylaG› It would be just as reactive if a bird flew through it, say.
11/11/2009 19:05:45 ‹ndef› I don't think it would.
11/11/2009 19:05:59 ‹caravaggio› all of these are designed for humans to use them though
11/11/2009 19:06:02 ‹KylaG› Well, certain aspects. I'm thinking in terms of his "water" example.
11/11/2009 19:06:13 ‹KylaG› Not necessarily the stuff of his that he's shown.
11/11/2009 19:06:26 ‹KylaG› It may be one of those theoretical asymptotes that we can't actually reach.
11/11/2009 19:06:32 ‹ndef› Hm.
11/11/2009 19:21:44 ‹Mike› http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Alexander
11/11/2009 19:21:45 ‹Seminar› http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Alexander
11/11/2009 19:28:41 ‹ndef› "What is geometric performance?"
11/11/2009 19:37:10 ‹ndef› (That question was based on bad parsing... "the performance of computational geometry" was intended.)
11/11/2009 19:41:44 ‹ndef› Shallow semantics.
11/11/2009 19:41:54 ‹Bill› Can anyone whip up a retrospective reading list for this seminar?
11/11/2009 19:42:51 ‹Bill› I feel like my brain is leaking tasty concepts.
11/11/2009 19:45:00 ‹Bill› "User" as an abstraction.
11/11/2009 19:47:09 ‹Bill› Quasi-physics and playing against expectations.
11/11/2009 19:50:08 ‹Seminar› http://alcor.concoria.ca/~davimorr
11/11/2009 19:50:38 ‹Seminar› +http://alcor.concordia.ca/~davimorr/
11/11/2009 19:50:49 ‹Seminar› http://alcor.concordia.ca/~davimorr/
11/11/2009 20:02:01 ‹Bill› It's not like training dolphins.
11/11/2009 20:03:24 ‹KylaG› If it's rewarding play, then it's like training dolphins.

Since I guess everyone in CTIN534 is posting their game projects, here's a link to mine:

http://www.kongregate.com/games/laikafawkes/walk-straight

It's a game about navigating a space. It's called "Walk Straight." Hope you enjoy it.

Last week during Design for Interativity, Professor Fullerton used "baseball" and "submarines" as two ideas that probably wouldn't work well together in the same game. During the rest of the class, the subject of "Submarine Baseball" came up numerous times, causing increasingly moderate mirth. It kept reappearing. It was in danger of becoming a localized meme. I had to do something, fast.

Looking to lay the matter to rest once and for all, I took the challenge of designing a Submarine Baseball game. It's kind of a copout, in that there aren't actually animated submarines hitting a spheroid by swinging their periscopes or anything, but it's the best I could do.

View Treatment for "Submarine Baseball"

For my first simple system analysis, I chose a set of curious cards entitled "What's My Story?" What manner of engrossing revelation followed? Consult the following PDF to find out!

Mike Sennott's Simple System Analysis