Pimping the Red Ridding Hood

August 28, 2007

Today’s exercise to ‘pimp’ the Red Ridding Hood Story to make it more interactive was indeed exciting. Not only did it finally gave us a first hand experience of what interactivity means or can mean, it also gave a lot of insight into the very nature of it. Also it was interesting to observe the way each group interpreted the story itself. While one group struck to the moral of the story as the kernel of the narrative, there were groups like mine which took the liberty to tamper the story inside out to fit the kind of discourse and media we were employing to enhance interactivity. It was also interesting to note the kind to response each group gave when given the exercise. I cannot comment much on the rest – though I could infer – but as for my group, the engineers in us responded totally different from the group filled with arts and communications student. Concurrently the role of the psychology and the  background of the audience in filling in ‘the blanks’ within the core narrative is interesting to think about. Chatman’s notion of narrative inference comes into play here. Concurrently if Hemingway’s super short story was presented to a set of people of different backgrounds, will there be a stark difference in the blanks they fill in in-order to form different narratives, or is the core ‘kernel’ story strong enough to prevent the narrative going overtly different thereby maintaining some form of control in the form of suggested commonality? My thoughts are getting pretty bizarre right now… gotta catch a nap soon….enough for a day

A cool site I found…. Kinda like my definition of interactivity

August 25, 2007

Interactivity??? Ummmm…. What???

August 19, 2007

Dear All, I welcome myself to the world of blogging!! In short its my first time. Well I am here to give my comment on one of the readings of the first the first lecture. Since I was not ‘privileged’ enough to be a spectator to the movie ‘Momento’, I guess I will have to stick to writing my thoughts on the seemingly restrictive and yet at the same time interesting definition of interactivity as laid down by Chris Crawford. Crawford’s writing style is very conversational and indeed a delight to read, however even though how convincing his argument may sound, I was still left thinking about the veracity of his views. First of all I beg to differ when he choose to ‘define’ interactivity. A definition means a concrete  undebatable truth and for a topic as debatable as ‘interactivity’ enough room should be left for further arguments and counter-arguments. Crawford has indeed covered a lot of ground with regards to his conclusion. However the part where I would like to interject him is when he differentiates higher and lower level interactivity. My view on this is that such classification is not necessary as even a child interacts and learns even though how low the level of interaction may be. Also he fails to take into account the interactivity of print media. Print media may be classified as ‘old’ media but it can indeed be made interactive. The multiple plot novels are a case in example. Also while defining interactivity he neglects the time scale of the response of a system to a particular stimulus. My question is that can u  call a program interactive if it has a complicated response algorithm or the input volume is so massive such that its slows the response of the thinking system even though how interactive the UI is or how well it conform to Crawford’s criteria for interactivity? Well its still left for open debate.  (ps: Boring!!!)  Read the rest of this entry »