Don, Fil, Peter, Jerry,Terry and listers
Interesting discussion. To me the issue lies in selection and
recognition and selection, both of the metaphor and of those elements
within its scope relevant to a focal situation. That implies that
metaphors are found intentionally - by searching, however
subconsciously, for references of relevance to some, sometimes poorly
formed, but situated goals . Within that search some process must seek
to match entities of concern in the focal situation to elements within
the source. At this level ( "probably" emotionally driven) the brain
is "probably" considering personal knowledge as well as circumstances
of the situation that have been internalized. I suspect that the
selection of a metaphor that is able to "inform" an intention is a
"trained process" perhaps similar to a constructivist network or the
product of one of Terry's complex systems. It relies on accumulated
experience and a kind of "poetic" imagination. These are all stretches
for understanding but that is what is needed here it seems.
In his book "Mindsight" the philosopher Colin McGinn has made a good
case for the intentionality of imagination and its relational nature
that seems to support the shift in understanding metaphor evident in
this discussion.
Thanks to everyone for contributing to this thread.
Chuck
On Apr 4, 2010, at 3:53 PM, Don Norman wrote:
> I, too, find the discussion on metaphor rich and compelling, but I
> wish to go beyond. If you will, I want to do what good designers are
> supposed to do and get at the root cause. So away with metaphor. let
> us go deeper.
>
> This discussion has tossed about many concepts, but the one that got
> me thinking was "affordance," I word with which I have a passing
> acquaintance and which I now somewhat disown. "Away," I say to
> affordance, "you have done as much harm as good. You never listened to
> me when you were young and now it is too late to reform." , For most
> uses in design, I have launched upon a campaign to replace with the
> word "signifier. But that is a different story for a different time.)
>
> I realized the affordance/signifier were in a completely different
> category than metaphor, and this illuminated the issue. An affordance,
> or if you will, a signifier, is a design tool. There are many such
> tools. Interactive designers have signifiers, visibility, feedback,
> causal chain, mapping, etc. Other areas of design have their own
> tools, guides, and laws. But none of these are in the same category
> as a metaphor: A metaphor illuminates. It ties different things
> together. It provides structure. Aha! This is not about metaphors: it
> is about the need for structure.
>
> Why do some wish to use metaphors? It is, I believe, because the
> appropriate metaphor gives a theme and consistency, form and
> structure, and coherence and understanding to the final design.
>
> So let us think about this: let me use the word Structure to capture
> all of that.
>
> I have long argued that what makes a design powerful, beautiful,
> understandable, and usable is a good conceptual model, so that people
> can understand where everything fits together and what everything's
> role is.
>
> But that is also what a good metaphor is meant to do.
>
> Or stories: Stories establish a theme. Stories are much more
> appropriate for services -- for interactive design -- because they
> capture the time course of the interaction.
>
> But whatever you call it: metaphor, story, schema, theme, structure,
> conceptual model: all are intended to do the same thing: to establish
> coherence and understanding.
> =====
>
> That is the first order analysis.
>
> Second-order analyses do show that all of these different approaches
> are somewhat different. I, myself, am not a fan of metaphor because i
> find it too restrictive. No modern, complex system is captured
> properly by a single metaphor. Worse, there are always things that
> don't apply, and therefore a sense of confusion. (An atom with its
> electrons spinning about (classical view) is like the sun and the
> planets. Except that an atom is not hot. How is the young student
> supposed to know that? The "desktop" metaphor is especially strained.
> Nothing on the desktop anymore is like a real desktop. (The desktop
> metaphor was strained on day one.)
>
> Metaphors are useful in getting started, perhaps, but once started, i
> urge dropping them: they are too restraining. They are always false
> (that is why they are called "metaphors" rather than "reality"). BUT,
> you must replace them with compelling, cohesive structures.
>
> Of course, as Lakoff and his multiple collaborators have argued, all
> language is metaphoric. Moreover, one can metaphorically interpret
> anything. That is, you can't escape it. It's the way the mind works.
>
> Cheers.
>
> Don
|