Transcendent Interactions Collaborative Contexts and Relationship-based Computing
by Paolo Massa on Nov 26, 2008
- 2,113 views
Not a presentation by me ...
Not a presentation by me
BUT
A presentation
by
Stewart Butterfield
Ben Cerveny
Eric Costello
Ludicorp Ltd.
(I was always referring to it, so now there\'s a URL to refer to ;)
Accessibility
Categories
Tags
Upload Details
Uploaded via SlideShare as Microsoft PowerPoint
Usage Rights
© All Rights Reserved
Statistics
- Favorites
- 0
- Downloads
- 11
- Comments
- 11
- Embed Views
- Views on SlideShare
- 2,113
- Total Views
- 2,113
note to thirteenth slide (cont.)
Today it is nearly taken for granted that people are using computers to create, to communicate, to express themselves — and to seek out the same from others.
If, as developers, we want to support this movement, we require a new and powerful reframing of the metaphor of computation: relationship-based computing.
We use computation to extend our relationships with others. Our computational acts and the objects they generate exist in the context of a relationship with another person or group.
And it won't be long before the idea of double clicking a document seems as specialized (or even quaint) as standing back while the computer 'executes its program'.
next 3 years ago Reply
note to thirteenth slide (cont.)
Over time, the focus of computation moved sharply from means (applications) to the ends (documents). Documents were where value accreted through the operation of the computer.
But it is only in the last several years, since computation has become pop-cultural, that we began to address a more fundamental question: why are we, as casual computer users, generating these documents using these applications? The reason: other people.
And the rise of the network meant that there were, as often as not, humans on the other end of our computing activities.
next 3 years ago Reply
note to thirteenth slide
Once upon a time, computation was a raw, ungainly act with physical switches thrown and vacuum tubes replaced by hand. Later, punchcards flipped bits inside the computer, lights blinked, and equations were solved: programs ran, and then produced results.
Eventually, to aid the operator in navigating this process, a metaphor was wrapped around the code. Initially, this metaphor presented operations framed as tasks, and applications became the means by which you could produce or alter some potential permenant result: the document.
If you wanted to write, you opened a work processor. If you wanted to draw, you used a drawing application.
next 3 years ago Reply
note to sixth slide (cont.)
While it may not make sense to faciliate the acknowledgement and interlinking of these relationships in, say, the design of a sport, it can make sense in the design of software.
In fact, the more the software acknowledges the human behind the user (or the player behind the character, the person behind he database record), the more value people will find — and create.
next 3 years ago Reply
note to fifth slide
Often, the state of play arises spontaneously, especially in contexts where creative collaboration takes place. Ludicorp’s flagship playspace, the Game Neverending, is a system in which the building of the environment itself is a playful act. The mechanisms by which players create their own content for the spaces in the game they inhabit take on the roles of games within the larger game.
next 3 years ago Reply
note to fifth slide
Often, the state of play arises spontaneously, especially in contexts where creative collaboration takes place. Ludicorp’s flagship playspace, the Game Neverending, is a system in which the building of the environment itself is a playful act. The mechanisms by which players create their own content for the spaces in the game they inhabit take on the roles of games within the larger game.
next 3 years ago Reply
note to fourth slide
Of course play existed even before architecture. Many animals play as means of understanding themselves and each other. People ultimately need no props or objects for play, much less designed environments. Play is simply a state of mind.
Sometimes we use tools to get us into that state, like the frame for play that a game provides. But play exists always beyond the game, using such structures only as handles by which to hook into the flow.
next 3 years ago Reply
note to third slide
The design of massively multiplayer games and social software in general has followed the lead set by the likes of Jon Jerde, mall architect and creator of Horton Plaza in San Diego, the complex where the Emerging Technologies Conference was held.
His approach is based on the concept of ‘enclosure in entertainment’. By making visitor pathways twist back on themselves and providing a ‘diversity’ of views into an essentially closed system, Jerde’s spaces work to contain the experience of interaction.
next 3 years ago Reply
note to second slide
This is a slogan, or start of manifesto (though one that doesn't quite work. It does make a good jumping-off point though).
As we contemplate our own design goals, this gets pretty close to the root of our enthusiasm. We’re crafting tools for playful interaction that are contexts to dip into. Quick and fluid mechanisms for reframing communication as improvisational play.
next 3 years ago Reply
from http://www.ludicorp.com/etcon/2004/presentation1note.html
note to first slide
The title, Transcendent Interactions, refers to the goal of designing and developing software with the explicit understanding that any given interaction may exist outside the applications and systems produced. People will carry their relationships from an IM client, to email, play together in a massively multiplayer game, trade points on a discussion board, etc.
This occurs now, 'naturally', through loosely joined applications, open standards and APIs. But the full impact on the design of individual applications has not been felt. In fact ...
next 3 years ago Reply