21-nelson74-4web2

the

NEWMEDIA

READER

The general thinking in this system seems to be that the

student may get an overall organizing view of what he is

supposed to be learning (MAP); information on what he is

currently supposed to be about (OBJ); canned suggestions

based on what he’s recently done (ADVICE). Moreover, he

can get the system to present a rule about the subject or give

him practice; and for either of these he may request easier

rules or practice, or harder rules (i.e., more abstruse

generalities) or harder practice.

For the latter, the student is supposed to hit RULE or

PRACT followed by HELP, HARDER or EASIER, viz.:

Now regardless of whether this is a well-thought-out way

to divide up a subject—I’ll be interested to see how it works

out—these controls do not seem to be well-arranged for

conceptual clarity. It seems to be the old rows-of-buttons

approach.

I have no doubt that the people working on this system are

certain this is the only possible layout. But consider that the

student’s options might be clearer to him, for instance, if we

set it up as follows:

Or like this:

What I am trying to show here is that merely the

arrangement of buttons creates different fantic constructs. If

you see this, you will recognize that considering all the other

options we have, designing new media is no small matter.

The control structures merge mentally with the

presentational structures. The temptation to settle on short-

sighted designs having shallow unity is all too great.

Fantic Design

Fantic design is basically the planning and selection of effects.

(We could also call these “performance values”—cf.

“production values” in movies.)

Some of these intended effects are simply the

communication of information or cognitive structure—

“information transfer,” to use one of the more obtuse phrases

current. Other desirable effects include orienting the user

and often moving him emotionally, including sometimes

overwhelming or entrancing him.

In the design of fantic systems involving automatic

response, we have a vast choice among types of

presentational techniques, tricks that are just now becoming

understood. Not just screen techniques and functions, but

also response techniques and functions.

(If “feelie” systems are ever perfected, as in Huxley’s 

Brave

New World, it’s still the same in principle.)

In both general areas, though—within media, and designing

media—it seems to me that the creation of organizing

constructs is the most profound problem. In particular, the

organizing constructs must not distract, or tear up contents.

An analogy: in writing, the inventions of the paragraph,

chapter and footnote were inventions in writing technique

that helped clarify what was being expressed. What we need

in computer-based fantic design is inventions which do not

artificially chop up, constrain, or interfere with the subject

(see box, Procrustes, p. 328).

21. Computer Lib

/Dream Machines

324

---

21. Computer Lib

/Dream Machines

1974

I do not feel these principles are everywhere sufficiently

appreciated. For instance, the built-in structures of PLATO

disturbs me somewhat in its arbitrariness—and the way its

control keys are scattered around.

But there is always something artificial—that is, some

form of artifice—in presentation. So the problem is to

devise techniques which have elucidating value but do not

cut connections or ties or other relationships you want to

save. (For this reason I suggest the reader consider

“Stretchtext,” p. 315) , collateral linkage (p. 330), and the

various hypergrams (p. 314-16). These structures, while

somewhat arbitrary and artificial, nevertheless can be used

to handle a subject gently.)

An important kind of organizing construct is

the map or overall orienting diagram. This, too,

is often partly “exact” and partly “artifice”:

certain aspects of the diagram may have unclear

import but clear and helpful connotation. 

Responding systems now make it possible for

such orienting structures to be

multidimensional and responding.

Fantic design, then, is the creation either of

things to be shown (writing, movie-making,

etc.) at the lower end, or media to show things

in, or environments.

1. The design of things to be shown—whether writing,

movie-making, or whatever—is nearly always a combination

of some kind of explicit structure—an explanation or

planned lesson, or plot of a novel—and a feeling that the

author can control in varying degrees. The two are deeply

intertwined, however.

The author (designer, director, etc.) must think carefully

about how to give 

organization to what is being presented.

This, too, has both aspects, cognition and feelings.

At the cognitive end, the author must concern himself

with detailed exposition or argument, or, in fiction, plot. But

simply putting appropriate parts together is not enough: the

author must use organizing constructs to continually orient

the reader’s (or viewer’s) mind. Repeated reference to main

concepts, repeated shots (in a movie) of particular locations,

serve this function; but each medium presents its own

possible devices for this purpose.

The organization of the feelings of the work criss-crosses

the cognitive; but we can’t get into it here.

Selection of points and parts contributes to both aspects.

If you are trying to keep the feeling of a thing from being

ponderous, you can never include everything you wanted, but

must select from among the explicit points and feeling-

generators that you have thought of.

2. The design of media themselves, or of media subsystems, is

not usually a matter of option. Books, movies, radio and TV

are given. But on occasion, as for world’s fairs or very

personal projects, we have a certain option. Which allows

thing like:

• Smellavision or whatever they called it: 

movies with a smell-track, which went out

into the theater through odor generators.

• Branching movies.

• “Multi-media” (Multiple audio tracks and

simultaneous slide projections on different

screens).

• Stereo movies.

And so on. The thing about the ones

mentioned is that they are not viable as

continuing setups for repeated productions.

They do not offer a permanent wide market;

they are not stable; they do not catch on. Which is in a way,

of course, too bad.

But the great change is just about now. Current

technicalities allow branching media—especially those

associated with computer screens. And it is up to us now to

design them.

3. MENTAL ENVIRONMENTS are working places for

structured activity. The same principles of showmanship

apply to a working environment as to both the 

contents of

media and the design of media. If media are environments

into which packaged materials are brought, structured

environments are basically environments where you use non-

packaged material, or create things yourself. They might also

be called “contentless media.” The principles of wholeness in

structured environments are the same as for the others, and

many of our examples refer to them.

325

;

---