Visual Ethnography — Digital Experiences and Orientalism

http://mediatedcultures.net/videos/falling-up-genre-busting-digital-ethnography/

A friend of mine posted a link on Facebook some time ago and it has ever since been on my mind.

Steven J. Bernstein once wrote, 
"I like to think when something disturbs me - that - it - is - important."

Initially, I would not have characterized the link as one that "disturbs" me. But, over time and upon reflection it has caused me some serious contemplation. Something about it bugs me — i.e. evidently it does disturb me. Here is the link — "Falling Up" – Genre Busting Digital Ethnography  

I don't know how to write/right this so... I will write... 

My initial reaction to this blurb/video about this strange new candy referred to as digital ethnography was quite positive. But, being a designer and a researcher has warped me. I can no longer partake of such fresh delights without quickly descending into the madness of my own personal cynicism.

What is the purpose of such an ethnography?!

Does this serve the purpose that an ethnography should?!

What does new media such as this actually do when it is used as "ethnography?!"

Cultural anthropology of the past/present followed a "salvage" model where the work was intended to preserve knowledge of current cultures by generating written ethnographies and other fairly static artifacts. Photos, films and other forms of media have increasingly been wove into the works that cultural anthropologists generate. I have been experimenting with ethnographic video so my post here is aimed not just at Wesch's project but at my own work as well. Arguably -- photos, film, video and audio records can be immersive and they do present their own set of challenges. But, interactive digital experiences are less a "record" of culture. They are more of a re-creation that claims to allow the viewer/user to feel as though they are stepping into a culture. Producing and editing such a re-creation puts the anthropologist in a position to manipulate the ethnography to a much greater degree than with previous media.

New media such as video and digital artifacts could be seen as pursuing a new model aimed at providing an "experience." This new model of experience is exciting to me. Seemingly, it can provide the audience with a means to understand a culture more deeply, to feel, empathize, and... well... experience other cultures. But, does it really do this? Does it do it in a way that is true, real or productive? I'm not sure that it always does. I fear that too often it will not. And yet I feel compelled to create such ethnography. There is power in these new methods. It seems that spreading knowledge through such experiences could have such positive outcomes that it would be foolish to not make the attempt.

Still I have serious questions and reservations. Let's consider anthropological exhibits as they are often created within the context of a museum. When we put the seemingly strange object of another culture on a white pedestal and light it dramatically in a large white room what exactly is the experience for the viewers? What is the experience when we fill that room with other carefully lit objects in glass cases and on white pedestals? Does it respect the culture? Does it represent it in such a way that the viewer gets an accurate feel for the culture?

A digital virtual space seems all to similar to this type of treatment — the digital screen is a glowing, candy-like window hanging in space. In fact it seems to have even a greater potential for ill (or good?). Does such a presentation become a feast on knowledge or does it become a binge on candy? Is it a fine line that is in some ways too easy to cross? More importantly -- are we "othering" the subjects of such an ethnography? We have lived this problem before through the orientalism of the 20th century. I believe it is possible to do better if we are aware of this recent past.

So, many concerns come with creating an ethnography of this type or in this way. I will end this post with more questions that may act as provocations or perhaps guide me to make better ethnographic artifacts.

Does it treat the culture and people being studied with respect?

Does it treat the viewer/reader/user with respect?

What is the purpose of such a project?

Does it represent the culture in a way that is "real" and who is defining what "real" is?

Does it compel the audience to explore their world or does it make them just crave more candy?

                 

Small "Rules," Large Effects, and Rapid Iterations

 — more board game design observations
and how they might apply to IX/UX design

I continue to ask myself whether or not there is really any value in studying board game design. Can this path of research be adapted for improving interaction/experience (IX/UX) design skills. Can board game design teach us something that simply studying IX/UX design cannot or what can it teach us in a better way?

I will focus here on one particular area that I think is noteworthy. It's something that I have tried to incorporate into my teaching and it was tangentially the topic of my last blog post. But, I think it's worthwhile to spend a few more words on it here.

In IX/UX design (i.e. the design of digital, interactive experiences) the "rules" that the user must follow are buried in the software code. This makes it impossible for the user to break the rules and at the same time allows them to learn the rules through experiencing the design -- e.g. if I click here something happens that I like but if I click there nothing happens at all. Once a digital design has been produced (even in the form of a digital prototype) it can sometimes be difficult to change the rules. There may be truck loads of intertwined rules and in some cases the designer may not have even considered in an explicit way what the rules are or how they relate to one another and/or to the user.

Board game design forces the designer to think explicitly about the rules of the experience — if you are going to hand a board game over to someone else then those rules have to be in writing and they have to be written well. Rules need to be expressed in writing in a clear and concise way. Rule sets can be extremely complex — but, must be broken down systematically in a well structured, written document. This forces the designer to generate rules governing game play at all levels and scales — e.g. lots of very small rules are clustered together and these clusters form (or are governed by) larger or overarching rules. 

The upshot of this is that it is then relatively easy to change a single small rule to test and see the effect of that change. When tested in this way it is easy for the designers to see the effect of changing a small rule. Changing a small rule is easy but such a change can radically change the way that the design is experienced by users/players. This type of experimentation is common in the design and testing of board games because it is relatively easy to do and the pay-off can be that the game-play experience is effected in radical ways. During the test of a board game such experimentation and iteration can happen in only a few minutes. This provides the designer with very rapid feedback on small tweaks that have large effects. I have witnessed this process on many occasions in my research with board game designers.

Here are a few things that I think these elements of board game design can help IX/UX designers do better or understand more fully.

- preparing a set of written "rules" provides a way of precisely targeting small areas where changes can be made very quickly.

- a paper prototype paired with a written rule-set provides the designer with a means of testing small, highly targeted, quick iterations on a design.

- small changes can have large effects — read in Donella Meadows "Thinking in Systems" the section on leverage points.

This use of board game design tactics for IX/UX design is largely untested. And while there are more similarities than differences between these two types of design I must acknowledge that there are limitations in comparing the two. But, I continue to believe that there is great value in pursuing this path of research.

Board Games and the Future of Graphic Design in a World of Interaction

From very early in their education graphic design students must start thinking about design in terms of interaction, user-experience, and systems.   

The future of design will very likely be centered in digital spaces where these ways of thinking are crucial. I propose that board game design can be a powerful bridge to help beginning students do just that. Designing board games forces students to think in systems without requiring them to be skilled at writing code or using complex software features. Students tasked with designing a board game can use common materials like paper, markers, scissors and found objects. Using such materials students can work unconstrained to develop complex systems of interaction and user-experience.

My research for the last three years has focused on board game designers, their design processes and the artifacts that they create. These designers are often adept at rapidly prototyping complex systems that are represented in a very physical and visual form. In conjunction with this, the designer's primary effort is the creation of a set of rules outlining the behavior of the system — i.e. the function, use and experience of the physical artifact. In other words the board game designer creates a system — 

- the structure of the system is represented in the physical artifact as it is set up on the table AND

- the behavior of the system is described in the rule-set for playing the game.

These two characteristics — the structure and behavior of systems — form a comprehensive (if somewhat basic) framework for thinking, creating and working in systems.

Last semester I incorporated the design of a board game into the curriculum of my “Intro to Graphic Design” course. Students in these classes began by conducting ethnographic research to understand a particular group of people and a space that they frequent. This research was analyzed by the students using visual methodologies. This visual analysis was used to generate a problem statement that then drove the creation and testing of a board game. So, far the results of this course curriculum seem positive. I believe that this use of a visual ethnographic approach and its application in the form of creating a board game provides an accessible entry point for beginning graphic design students to begin thinking and working is ways that prepare them for the future of design.

The Meaning in the Method

This week I have been trying to write a rebuttal for a paper that Erik and I submitted for CHI. It's been a greater challenge than I had anticipated. Some things that have side tracked me are the comments from our reviewers. The paper is about developing new design methods and how that development process can or should be thought of as user-centered design (UCD). That term "user-centered design" has been a pebble in my shoe for a couple of years now. As much as I believe in UCD I also am deeply concerned that it encourages us too much to think about designs in utilitarian terms. This draws us away from deeper notions of what a design means. I believe that the formal nature of what we design, how it is interacted with, the context of its use and just about every other aspect of a design means something to those people who encounter or engage with the design.

So, when I read and contemplate the reviews of our paper the pebble in my shoe grows larger and more annoying. If a design method is designed for use by designers it seems to me that method means something and this creation of meaning is perhaps equal to or even more important than its utility.

So, how can a method mean something? Here is a very simplistic example: if we are creating and using personas as a design method this implies a number of very interesting meanings — everything about the user is important to us, we want to be able to empathize with the user, each user is unique, there is a specific type of user for any given design, etc. These are some of the possible underlying meanings for the method of creating and using personas. Perhaps not the greatest or most profound example but this is just off the top of my head. It seems to me that these meanings are even more important than the utility of the method. These are the "why" in the method.

When a new method is being developed the "why" runs even deeper. Our view of the method needs to not just address how the method addresses the needs and meanings in a designs end use but also what the use of that method means to the designer and what it says to the designer about those that developed the method. If a method is tedious, unpleasant to use, inefficient and produces inadequate results it may "mean" that those who developed the method don't really care about the designers who will use the method. A method that is developed and has these undesirable qualities may mean that the developer is more concerned with a research question or some other aspect of the method. This may be just fine depending on the context. But, I think it's something that we must be aware of.

It is increasingly my belief that our focus on "use" is degrading the "meaning" that is inherent in every design. I believe that people long for meaning and that we do them a great disservice when we as designers create things without deep consideration of what a design will mean when people experience and interact with it. And back the point of this post — new design methods should be developed, not just with "use" in mind but perhaps more importantly "meaning."

Why Board Game Design...

Should Be Taught to Graphic Design Students.

Lately I've been thinking... "What the heck am I doing here?"
You see I've been teach an intro to graphic design course here at Indiana University and I've been trying to think a little differently. My distant past is in graphic design and in the more recent past (the last 6 years) my focus has been on "interaction and user-experience design" (IX/UX design) The past couple of years I've been intensely studying board games and how they are designed. It seems to me that board game design may provided a useful bridge for graphic designers to start thinking in terms of IX/UX design. With digital spaces growing in presence, sophistication and complexity so rapidly I believe that IX/UX design is the future. I believe that this is the future of graphic design. This is not to say that good old logo design or any of the other more traditional forms of graphic design hold not value. It's simply means that these more traditional forms should be considered in the context of our rapidly evolving digital spaces. Towards that end I have been using board game design in my intro to graphic design course. I have done this not just by having them design a board game  — though that is the central project of the course and is the primary thread throughout it's entire 15 weeks. Along the way I have had students do user-research, read and discuss topics like semiotics, affordances, thinking in systems, etc. The goal has been to help them understand the importance of considering context and culture with an eye toward interaction.

So, what's so special about board game design?
Three categories to consider...

Users — without players a game is just a tabletop decoration. Furthermore it is insanely important to try to understand the people who will play the game. Over it's lifespan the context and culture that a board game inhabits is largely about the people that share the space of the game. This is true whether the game is sitting on the shelf, set up for play or being played on the table.

Rules — there must be some form of rules document and it needs to be good. Rules are the equivalent to the digital code of the game. A bad set of rules and/or a poorly designed rules document means that the game will crash. A good rules set means the game will run smoothly. This is perhaps an over simplification but I think it makes my point.

Signifiers and Affordances — the way that a game looks, it's graphic elements and physical bits mean something. As a designer you better be sure that these things mean the right things to the right people. These visual elements can go miles towards how a game feels and functions.

These three categories provide a framework of experience for the game. Each needs to work in conjunction with the others for a game to provide an acceptable experience for the players (or potential players). Each of them mirrors important considerations for interactions that are designed for our digital spaces.

Designing a board game provides students with an opportunity to use simple materials that are easily edited to create an interactive experience for users. In conjunction with a basic knowledge of form making and software -- Using paper, cardboard and other simple materials a student can rapidly prototype a game and easily make changes as problems and opportunities are discovered through playtesting.

Graphic designers need to start thinking about design in terms of interaction and user-experience. And I propose that board game design can be a powerful bridge to help them do just that.

Gary's four circles of hell...

for graphic designers who refuse to see the bigger picture.

A few years back someone I respect very much said to me, "Gary you are a form maker." Later this person also told me that I was "facile." At the time I took these as a somewhat negative comments — though I am certain they weren't intended as as negative in any way. I want(ed) to be more than a form maker. In the context of these comments a form maker is good at creating visual designs and being facile means that I do it well and do it quickly. I like these things about myself and having someone I respect labeling me in these ways should be flattering. But, deep within I knew/know that being a good designer should run much deeper. "Thinking" like a designer, questioning like a design, exploring ideas like a designer -- all of these and more must underlie the "making." These are what I am trying to instill in the students I am teaching this semester. It's an "intro to graphic design" course in which I am trying to teach students that design process and design thinking will set them apart from other graphic designers when they move on to other endeavors. The form making will come with practice and is secondary to deeper processes and thinking. Towards those ends we have spent the first three weeks of the semester researching a site, it's people and their culture.

Today in class a small mutiny reared it's ugly head. A couple of students spoke up saying things like, "In other studio classes we work differently — we don't like the structure of this course," and "we want to just focus on making pretty things." Other comments were made that they weren't really learning the things they feel are important. I can relate to these feelings and I feel them myself at times. But, the designer inside of me has deeper notions of what the priorities should be when approaching a design project.

Here is a screen grab from a site I discovered recently...

 

Link to site

What happens when we teach design and focus exclusively or even primarily on form making? Look at the screenshot above — the large colored circles across the top represent phases in a design process. Where does form making enter the processes and how many of the phases focus on form making? If we were to take this chart at face value then we would believe that form making begins in the last third of the overall process and is not the exclusive feature of that last third. But a funny thing begins to become apparent when the rest of the website is explored — a great number of methods in all of the phases use some type of form making. Form making is not used just at the end of the process but is used throughout the process — it is "thinking through making" and the making is formal in nature. Methods in the "toolkit" include making diagrams, maps, storyboards, collages and other visual artifacts. Who better to be involved in these portions of the process than graphic designers?

Most graphic design classes focus heavily (or even exclusively) on the last two circles. Why is this the case when a closer look at the methods in the earlier circles reveals that form making should be a part of the entire processes? Is it because we want to make pretty things even if they are less useful or less compelling? Why do novice graphic designers not want to be involved in the first four circles represented in this "Design Methods Toolkit?" My theory is this — graphic designers are addicted to the idea of the "final artifact." They long to complete that final beautiful thing.

The way I had designed the course is that beginning at the end of next week they will begin working on some end goal artifacts. But, quite honestly today I am tempted to redesign the remainder of the course and have them generate designs that reside in the first four circles.These are four circles that may be hell for others but it's where I want to be — I will become the master there... yes... I will... Mwa ha ha ha ha!!!

Notes to Self — Aug 26, 2015

The question is not whether boardgame/designed mechanisms evolve or not. It’s clear and documented that they do. Designers have on numerous occasions attributed an evolutionary lineage to their game mechanisms (e.g. — Keller/Odendahl 2014, Friese 2012). The bigger questions are these...

When new/novel mechanisms sometimes seem to spring seemingly from nowhere is there in reality a evolutionary string of roots that lead up to the birth of that mechanism?

... and ...

The larger question for me is — Do the mechanisms embody deeper ideas or concepts that evolve in a similar manner? 
Richard Breese hinted at such a possibility when he wrote of his attempt to minimize “luck factors,”  —


“1995 was the year of Klaus Teuber’s seminal game Settlers of Catan. I enjoyed Settlers but was not fond of the luck factors inherent in the dice rolling. I wanted to achieve the same effect but without the dice, just by placement of workers on the board. This became the central mechanic to the second ‘Key’ game Keydom, published in 1998, which is now recognized as the first worker placement game, as kindly acknowledged by Uwe Rosenberg... (Breese 2013)."

Limitation(s):
1) My interest is not in the mechanisms themselves but rather in the process — i.e. how a designer combines new/existing ideas to generate novel ones. I do study the artifacts and experience of playing boardgames — but, only as they are a reflection or outcome of a design process. My focus is on board game designers but has also included other types of designers.

Assumption(s):
1) One mechanism may be a compilation/integration of other smaller mechanisms — e.g. drafting cards in various forms is a mechanism and may be incorporated as a sub-mechanism of deck building.
2) board game design is at it’s core the design of complex systems (and humans are an integral part of that system). As such, a study of boradgames, game designers and processes provides insights that may be of value or have equivalencies to IX/UX design.

Methodology:
 I use an anthropological toolset that includes interviews (audio/video recording as well as text based), participant observation, various types of fieldnotes and ethnographic video/photography.



Keller, M. Odendahl, A. (2014). La Granga. Germany. Spielworxx.

Friese, F. (2012). Copycat. Germany. 2F Spiele.

Breese, R. (2013). UK Games Expo Magazine(?). UK