Norman's reference to affordances reminds me of a point Michele made in class over the intuitiveness of video game controllers. She mentioned that the traditional D-pad controller is something we had to learn how to use and that the Nintendo Wii controller captures a more natural and intuitive feel as an input device. This 2010 E3 video demoing the upcoming The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword reveals, "With Wii Motion Plus, the Wii remote becomes my sword. And I've got my nunchuk and that's going to be my shield."
I want to take Michele idea, connect it to Norman's suggestion of how "we need perceivable affordances to show us how we might interact," (p.68) and extend it to Microsoft Xbox 360's Kinect peripheral. Admittedly, I have not tried the Kinect device as of yet. I find it a bit gimmicky and have difficulty getting on board with the idea of using my body as a controller. The idea is brilliant, yet I wonder about the amount of feedback I would receive through a gaming experience. This is essentially what Norman is arguing with regards to automobiles. He says, "in the automobile, it is possible to isolate the passenger compartment from most of the vibration and sounds. Although this might be a good idea for passengers, it is a bad idea for the driver" (p. 61)
We rely on obtaining feedback from our devices to help us better navigate our environment. If I can hear my car's engine noise, I can better intuit my speed and general health of my vehicle. Similarly, a physical video game controller offers vibration, sound, and a tactile experience. Kinect does not offer these opportunities for feedback, yet it may offer something else Norman is presenting in this chapter. Norman posits, "a better way to design the future things of everyday life is to use richer, more informative, less intrusive signals: natural signals" (p. 59) My questions is whether the use of our bodies as a controller for the Kinect peripheral achieve a more natural method of input or not.
No comments:
Post a Comment