Author: Tamara

Posted on

Task 10: Attention Economy

Although this was a frustrating activity, it was exceptionally effective at demonstrating the importance of developing websites with positive (read:  straightforward) UI/UX in mind.  I think this exercise also demonstrates what a user might do to simply make all the nonsense stop!  I wonder how many websites end up collecting money from clickbait ads that unsuspecting users click on in an attempt to navigate from one part of a site to another?

And yet….consider the fact that I did stick with the exercise the entire time in order to get to that “YOU ARE AWESOME” page (which was pretty fantastic, I’m not going to lie).  In fact, I completed two attempts in order to better my time (and to see if I’d missed something obvious that would’ve allowed me to complete the task in a shorter time frame).  What does that say about me as a user?  (I am keeping in mind that the task was assigned, however, why did I feel the need to go back and better my original time if the point of the exercise was simply to complete the activity?).

Down the Rabbit Hole….

After completing this activity, I came across a TEDx talk with UX designer Johannes Ippen (below) discussing the importance of designing apps and websites for humans (not “users”).  Ippen discusses current UX design techniques and their built-in manipulative and addictive properties.  In his talk, Ippen highlights similar concerns to those voiced in Harris and Tufekci’s (2017) TED talks assigned this week.  In particular, Ippen reiterates the deception that apps/sites such as Facebook deliberately engage in so that our attention is held and we remain on-site (and keep returning to the site) for as long as possible (Ippen, 2019).  However, Ippen demonstrates that with a change in design, apps and websites can be designed to compliment human well being and health through changing the way in which UX is approached.  Rather than viewing people as users (effectively objectifying those interacting with the site),  UX designers, Ippen suggests, should think about designing for humans:

…we need to shift the way we are thinking about design.  We need to think beyond engagement methods; we need to think beyond the user.  We need to stop [thinking] of human beings as users.  We need to start designing products, not for when they are being used, but for when they are not being used. (Ippen, 2019).

That is, rather than bombard people with notifications, messages and “Snapstreak” counts designed to keep you coming back for more, Ippen suggests designers need to consider the repercussions of the constant barrage of messages they send to their users.  Ippen believes designers should focus on making better apps that consider the well being of those using their apps (both when someone is using an app and when the app is not being used).  In this way, Ippen believes our use of apps can become more well-balanced and safer for our mental health.

But….

Then I return to Harris and Tufekci’s talks.  There is so much money to be made through clever and manipulative UX design.  Is it likely that powerful companies such as Facebook will alter their UX in favour of a more well-balanced approach?  Unless there is monetary or legislative incentive to do so, I don’t think so.

Ippen, J. (2019). Humans, not Users: Why UX is a Problem.  Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/johannes_ippen_humans_not_users_why_ux_is_a_problem

Posted on

Linking Assignment: Task 7 – Mode-Bending

For task #7 (Mode-Bending), I’ve chosen to link to Chris Lam’s The Last Modebender task.  I loved it!  I chose Chris’ task initially because I was intrigued by his use of video for a sound-based task:  I was curious. I also appreciate humour and when I saw the thumbnail Chris had chosen for his video, I figured I’d be in for a treat:  Chris didn’t disappoint!  Although, his poor wife may have selected another image rather than a piggy to represent herself, Chris’ reasons for selecting such an image seemed good-natured and humorous, so I suppose that’s ok.  😉

Multiliteracies/Multimodalities

Chris’ thoughtful use of The New London Group’s (1996) multimodalities to present his audio task was quite clever; through video, he was able to successfully integrate, ” all 6 the elements of design: linguistic, visual, audio, gestural, spatial, and multi-modal.” (Lam, 2020).  However, he was also able to successfully focus on the audio element of the contents of his ‘bag’ (pocket?) through recording the sound the objects made as he tossed them on the ground/cushion.  The idea that those objects themselves can tell a story about Chris’s life, was pretty creative.
For this task, like Chris, I also relied quite heavily on The New London Group’s (1996) concept of multiliteracies/multimodalities.  I think Chris and I are similar in our interest in providing our readers with a creative, unique multimodal experience (showcasing the audio element, of course).  We’ve both included visual elements (Chris with his video, and I with the visualization produced by Voyant Tools) and text elements as well.
Where we differ, is in how we chose to present our audio interpretation:  I used sonification to present a song-like version of Task 1, whereas Chris presented the sound his objects make when tossed on a surface.  Both interpretations tell a different kind of story about the objects we both deem important to us.  Chris’ audio ‘story’ might be more familiar to those viewing (and listening to) Chris’ video, whereas, my sonification might seem foreign and odd to some.  However, both audio interpretations are valid and both tell a story about the objects that are important to the two of us.

Spam prevention powered by Akismet