I think you are right about the value of looking at dynamic form in the
area of interaction design. I spoke about dynamic form in just this
context in Chicago a couple of years ago, but I don't know where the
recording is.
Dick
Richard Buchanan
Carnegie Mellon University
--On Saturday, May 4, 2002 3:03 PM +0200 "Stefan Holmlid (ERA)"
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Niklas,
> and all other interested
>
> I find _dynamic form_ intriguing, and agreeing with Jonas, finding it
> highly relevant to the design of interactive artefacts, where we are
> dependant on time to do any kind of design; as with pace, rhythm etc.
>
> I just want to provide a few comments which might spur discussions, I
> hope, and further your understanding of what you are trying to
> accomplish. They are more interpretations of the answers you're seeking,
> than answering the questions you pose.
>
> INTERPRETATION
> Just defining _dynamic form_ presupposes that there is a concept _static
> form_, devoid of all dynamicity. Does these "as opposed to" concepts
> provide new insights on design, or do they reestablish and strengthen the
> "traditional" _static_ concept? Would another starting point, such as
> looking at the >dynamicity of form> (in any material...), provide a more
> open ended process without preconceived juxtapositions? Just ponder a bit
> over John Cages 4' 33'' as being music, or a work of art.
>
> The definition you've chosen "form that can be modified over time in
> response to different external or internal stimuli" as a basis is vague,
> or weak. What does it mean that something has _dynamic form_? What
> suffices to be counted as _dynamic_? Lets turn to a material view for
> exploration of the concept; jelly? Bi-metals? Corrosion? A glass turning
> warmer when you hold it? Erosion? A melody? Rotating an object, or
> changing perspective? And what about interpretation and understanding? It
> might just turn out that the distinction between _dynamic_ and _static_
> is not meaningful, or at least only meaningful in a very specific view of
> the world (a world where actions we do require that we distinguish
> between static and dynamic for those action to exist). Or it might just
> turn out that static form merely is a special case of, or a limitation
> to, dynamic form. That is, there might be no need defining dynamic form
> separately from form, but instead static form needs to be defined as! a
> limiting perspective on form.
>
> To continue on the same theme; who is the agent that is allowed to modify
> the form? Is there a need for an agent to modify the form?
>
> Or to take an epistemological view; in a Heideggerian sense all form is
> always already dynamic, in that it goes from ready-to-hand to
> ready-at-hand.
>
> HISTORY
> _Dynamic form_ is a concept which needs to be related to other
> concepts/properties such as plasticity, elasticity, flexibility, etc.
> Especially if one deals with partly tangible materials, partly
> non-tangible/virtual materials. This is one point where your definitional
> work begins. You might want to look at a framework such as the one in
> http://www.ep.liu.se/ea/cis/1997/008/.
>
> You might want to look for examples within landscaping (designing with
> movement, aging and growth in mind), urban design (designing with
> movement, changing plans and aging of buildings in mind), dramaturgy,
> dance, film, and even literature (such as the reader's response
> school...). And of course not the least; interactive art, e.g. Ken
> Feingold, Daniel Rozin, Simon Biggs, Chris Hales, just to mention a few.
>
> You should also look carefully into the young but productive area of
> HCI/usability/interaction design; you will be surprised over the sheer
> amount of dynamic form (mostly of interactive computer based artifacts,
> of course), that has been produced and reflected over.
>
> best wishes
> Stefan Holmlid
> Usability and Interaction Design researcher
> Ericsson Radio Systems
> LinLab
> Tel:+46 13 28 42 17
> Fax:+46 13 28 73 70
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
|