Multimodal Semiotics and Collaborative Design

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ackdrop for the understanding of user practices in mediated places, I specifically focus on coproduction of meaning potentials through collaborative design. Research on design collaboration in virtual worlds The user-generated VWs afford a shared virtual environment for synchronous design collaboration, where “designers are physically remote but virtually co-located as avatars within their design representation in the form of a 3D model” (Gu et al. 2011: 270). Therefore, such 3D worlds are thought to facilitate higher levels of design communication and representation, mainly because of their multimodal communication cues that produce an awareness of the nearby designer(s) and their actions in three-dimensional space. The digital technology enables co-designers to perceive and use shared design representations through new interactions with the digital models (Gu et al. 2011). As mentioned above, such collaborative actions may require new ways of spatial thinking and behavior (i.e. use of avatars and navigating via interfaces), especially when designers have different preferences and responses to different modes of design representations (i.e. 2D sketching and 3D modeling). Interaction design researchers Greg Wadley and Nicolas Ducheneaut (2009) focus on the mechanics of user collaboration via avatars in virtual space, and on how a group of virtual world users communicate and collaboratively create required geometries by given components. They classify the two levels of the sense presence in Second Life as ‘in-avatar’ and ‘in-camera’, which points to an important characteristic of the VW; and results in new challenges such as not being able to understand where your group member’s camera is focused and not being able to communicate on specific objects/parts because of disorientation. Their work also reveals the role of the detachable camera in user experience and orientation in collaborative working. By providing designers with modular components of a pre-designed form to re-assemble, Wadley and Ducheneaut (2009) exclude the extensive use of the inventory, collection of resources from various platforms. While their findings are significant for showing how verbal and non-verbal references (i.e. visually marking positions, pointing with editing functions, marking places with avatars) are used for spatial functions such as navigation and orientation, they choose to single out a limited part of the design process, and do not involve the social aspects. I intend to broaden the context of inquiry to include how users collaboratively generate content by involving the variety of socially available resources during the process. Unlike Wadley and Ducheneaut, my focus is not only on how user-designers perform given tasks, but how they collaboratively generate ideas, and produce virtual places and artifacts as emerging meaning systems. This perspective includes the mechanics of collaboration as an important element, for which Wadley and Ducheneaut’s study is a valuable resource. On the other hand my main purpose 27
is to observe collaborative design practices in their authentic settings and social contexts of occurrence in SL, rather than formulating experimental procedures to test specified interactions (Koutsabasis et al 2012). I believe the socio-cultural and ethnographic perspectives can support the social semiotic analysis of these aspects. Educational technology scholar David Thomas and urban/environmental planning scholar Justin Hollander (2010) focus on the pedagogical aspects of collaborative design, and they conduct a series of case studies of urban planning courses taught using Second Life, videogames, and gamelike virtual worlds as a means to advance studio education pedagogy in design. They use participant observation and teaching, analyze student projects and processes in six urban planning studio courses, and discuss potentials and limits of emerging digital media for studio-based design education. In the “Communication and Design in VWs Workshop” case-study, I have analyzed 15 international students, who worked in groups to design artifacts in SL. Therefore, I consider the pedagogical perspective of Thomas and Hollander (2010), and of other educational VW researchers, resourceful for the analysis of case studies. However, a pedagogical perspective is not a central concept that bridges and unifies the three case-studies that I have conducted in SL. I am also interested in understanding the contextual differences between amateurs –or students- and experienced content creators. The possible affordances and benefits of virtual technologies for RL professional designers is also a fairly well investigated area within VW research (i.e. Kohler et al. 2009, Koutsabasis et al. 2012). For instance, product and systems design researcher Panayiotis Koutsabasis and colleagues (Koutsabasis et al. 2012) investigate the value and applicability of VW technologies to architectural design, interior design and user interface design practices through a series of experimental collaborative cases. In their view, “VW can add value in the design review and evaluation phases of design activities, especially for cases and domains of design for which customer participation and feedback is critical” (Koutsabasis et al. 2012: 385). Their study also presents certain limitations that affect the inworld behaviors of co-designers, and shape the structure of collaborative design processes. Drawing specifically on their potentials for collaborative design, Koutsabasis et al. (2012) relate the main characteristics of VWs that may be beneficial to VW designers. These include the affordances for making 3D visualizations and simulations, experiencing real-time navigation, creating and manipulating objects, co-constructing solutions, feeling immersed and present through avatars, and being able to use several forms of verbal and non-verbal as well as synchronous and asynchronous communication. Is also possible to come by various independent VW platforms and projects, which offer their users synchronous communication platforms that support collaborative 3D modeling and 28
Page 2 and 3: Prologue ‘So it isn’t the origi
Page 4 and 5: Multimodal Semiotics and Collaborat
Page 6 and 7: CHAPTER 3. Social semiotics, multim
Page 8 and 9: Official and third party viewers
Page 10 and 11: List of Figures Figure 4.1 Domains
Page 12 and 13: List of Tables Table 2. 1 Theories
Page 14 and 15: 1. Introduction Virtual places and
Page 16 and 17: technologies introduce new social w
Page 18 and 19: innovation studies researchers have
Page 20 and 21: contextual factors of collaborative
Page 22 and 23: creative collaboration, and creativ
Page 24 and 25: In a multimodal and multi-method ap
Page 26 and 27: three case studies. This chapter al
Page 28 and 29: 2. Perspectives in virtual worlds r
Page 30 and 31: making. In fact, it is possible to
Page 32 and 33: virtual world technologies, it sign
Page 34 and 35: collaborative actions that span qui
Page 36 and 37: mediated social interaction with ot
Page 38 and 39: their perceived effects on networke
Page 42 and 43: multidisciplinary working (Gu et al
Page 44 and 45: Socio-cultural perspectives on co-d
Page 46 and 47: innovation differs from Bonsu and D
Page 48 and 49: In a place-centric socio-semiotic v
Page 50 and 51: Theoretical Categories Concepts and
Page 52 and 53: 3. Social semiotics, multimodality
Page 54 and 55: 3.1. The social semiotic approach t
Page 56 and 57: structures and analyzing the contex
Page 58 and 59: designers’ purposeful orchestrati
Page 60 and 61: communication as an essential semio
Page 62 and 63: aspects of multimodal entities for
Page 64 and 65: and-paste logic of online media, th
Page 66 and 67: from the meaning-making practices,
Page 68 and 69: and Turner 2004). Social Informatic
Page 70 and 71: From this perspective, to build (an
Page 72 and 73: human action unfolds in ‘three-di
Page 74 and 75: genius loci idea to virtual places,
Page 76 and 77: Michael de Certeau’s (1984) analy
Page 78 and 79: semiotic practices, in all kinds of
Page 80 and 81: follow similar considerations of ex
Page 82 and 83: comparatively analyzing the multimo
Page 84 and 85: Here, the relevant question for pos
Page 86 and 87: 3.6. Conclusion: social semiotics a
Page 88 and 89: Theoretical Categories Concepts and
Page 90 and 91:
4. Theory and practice in design re
Page 92 and 93:
elations. One example of the formal
Page 94 and 95:
traditional distinctions between de
Page 96 and 97:
Research for design aims to provide
Page 98 and 99:
potentially offers to our senses. D
Page 100 and 101:
In sum, I consider affordances and
Page 102 and 103:
It is certainly important that desi
Page 104 and 105:
A solely production-based account o
Page 106 and 107:
design problems, while its variatio
Page 108 and 109:
user-driven innovations. Von Hippel
Page 110 and 111:
institutional contexts (Grossen 200
Page 112 and 113:
Meaning-oriented design theories
Page 114 and 115:
As explained in the Introduction ch
Page 116 and 117:
The multimodal social semiotic appr
Page 118 and 119:
them, and (b) experiential and inte
Page 120 and 121:
From multimodal analysis, I draw ce
Page 122 and 123:
phenomenology of time and space (an
Page 124 and 125:
My analytical framework includes a
Page 126 and 127:
characteristics of design in virtua
Page 128 and 129:
6. Methodology Introduction This ch
Page 130 and 131:
multimodal analysis in virtual worl
Page 132 and 133:
sensibilities, and methods of analy
Page 134 and 135:
are contextualized by the socio-tec
Page 136 and 137:
perspectives as the primary source
Page 138 and 139:
‣ Communication and Design in Vir
Page 140 and 141:
perspectives and methods. The evolu
Page 142 and 143:
designers are not necessarily geogr
Page 144 and 145:
material resources either by visiti
Page 146 and 147:
and selection of participants in co
Page 148 and 149:
also the reason why this case study
Page 150 and 151:
within each consequent case study,
Page 152 and 153:
created/constituted in the situated
Page 154 and 155:
than make overall statements and ge
Page 156 and 157:
in-depth qualitative understanding
Page 158 and 159:
7.1. The social actors and configur
Page 160 and 161:
The core design team consists of Ca
Page 162 and 163:
Curiza as the owner of the sim and
Page 164 and 165:
and appreciation. He says “if you
Page 166 and 167:
For Curiza, the hardest part of bei
Page 168 and 169:
context 5 . On the other hand, this
Page 170 and 171:
interviews, combined with findings
Page 172 and 173:
Comparisons with game experiences a
Page 174 and 175:
modification, combination and appro
Page 176 and 177:
Shaggy, who recommends designers to
Page 178 and 179:
he often used the Internet for “f
Page 180 and 181:
The variety of comments from the wo
Page 182 and 183:
technological developments but also
Page 184 and 185:
the four Moons group, a few members
Page 186 and 187:
esource for inspiration. Such inter
Page 188 and 189:
inworld discussion about the costum
Page 190 and 191:
“reminds the sounding of the word
Page 192 and 193:
Although Shaggy’s perspective abo
Page 194 and 195:
For Caitlyn, the major advantage of
Page 196 and 197:
PAL’s design. According to AmyLee
Page 198 and 199:
shared or collaborative edited by m
Page 200 and 201:
collaborative practices in order to
Page 202 and 203:
8. Analyzing multimodal discourse i
Page 204 and 205:
these places, their elevations and
Page 206 and 207:
(Rank-scale/ EXPERIENTIAL / INTERPE
Page 208 and 209:
Superheroes. Caitlyn, whose needs a
Page 210 and 211:
Figure 8.1. View from Metrotopia: T
Page 212 and 213:
Although Metrotopia was specificall
Page 214 and 215:
The Fight Club Dojo is designed to
Page 216 and 217:
Caitlyn: [W]e wanted to advertise,
Page 218 and 219:
of expression and reception of digi
Page 220 and 221:
In Curiza’s comment the introduct
Page 222 and 223:
textual functions of the content (m
Page 224 and 225:
their interest in such metaphors fo
Page 226 and 227:
Synthesis of the findings on experi
Page 228 and 229:
Caitlyn: [L]ooking at what makes up
Page 230 and 231:
Curiza: I told Xavier “Xavier I w
Page 232 and 233:
0 Figure 8.22. (left) Metrotopia Pa
Page 234 and 235:
and posters with positive political
Page 236 and 237:
Synthesis of the findings on interp
Page 238 and 239:
Figure 8.26. (left) The draw-bridge
Page 240 and 241:
Use of prims as semiotic units is m
Page 242 and 243:
Modes and multimodal design element
Page 244 and 245:
Xavier: It was very, EXTREMELY colo
Page 246 and 247:
Texts and images are often used tog
Page 248 and 249:
placement of various interactive lo
Page 250 and 251:
9. Conclusions and discussions 9.1.
Page 252 and 253:
and the lack of prior experience, p
Page 254 and 255:
in flux in inworld collaborative de
Page 256 and 257:
potentials, and aim to reinforce th
Page 258 and 259:
Although not all of the co-designer
Page 260 and 261:
As mentioned in the literature surv
Page 262 and 263:
Drawing on this point, I also consi
Page 264 and 265:
(Kress, 2010). The analysis of the
Page 266 and 267:
although he also acknowledges the r
Page 268 and 269:
creative activities and reduce the
Page 270 and 271:
Further directions for research The
Page 272 and 273:
Bakhtin, M.M. (1986). Speech, genre
Page 274 and 275:
Charmaz, K., (2002). Qualitative in
Page 276 and 277:
Fischer, G. and Giaccardi, E., (200
Page 278 and 279:
Halliday, M.A.K. (2007). Language a
Page 280 and 281:
Jones, J.C., (2009). What is design
Page 282 and 283:
Lemke, J.L. (2005). Place, pace and
Page 284 and 285:
Norman, D.A. (2008). The way I see
Page 286 and 287:
Reinhard, C. D., & Dervin, B. (2010
Page 288 and 289:
Thackara, J. (2005). In the bubble:
Page 290 and 291:
Summary in English Computer-generat
Page 292 and 293:
Dansk resumé af afhandlingen Compu
Page 294 and 295:
Interview Guide (Metrotopia and PAL
show all

Multimodal Semiotics and Collaborative Design

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?