Interfaces and Gate Keepers

(CIMIT Interface Design... number 13)

It's pretty interesting reading about interfaces and the evolution and the homogeneity of visual themes, when I'm actually working on designing an interface for my part time job. I'm working for a group called CIMIT (the Center for the Integration of Media and Innovative Technology), and a big part of the problem that I've been faced is figuring out many of the nuances that Manovich discusses in his book. A big part of the learning curb for me has been figuring out how our eyes flow and cognate information... determining a good layout so the eye flows in the direction you want it to, utilizing color to highlight interactable objects, and all the while not bombarding the eye with too much information. That has been the biggest problem for me is the fact that there is a lot of information my client wants the player to access at any one moment. There are just so many things that we take for granted when using any sort of software, when so much thought goes into not only the content but the functionality of the software. Fonts... who thought that such a simple thing as font has it's own complex ideology and set of rules for which ones can and cannot be known. Times to use Serif or Sans Sarif, sort of funny when most of us use Times New Roman. Being an artist it's also been hard to limit things that could only be considered visual fluff and consider the functionality first. It's sort of like what Manovich was talking about, I had designed different types of scroll bars that I thought were more interesting, and in the end we chose a visual style that has been proven to work before and therefor pretty standard. 

Beyond all of this I started looking for an article to write about tonight and found some pretty fun ones... Articles like "Obama mention pie 15 times in less than two minutes during a speech. That's change we can believe in," "Teen changes her name to website address to prevent students from dissecting chicken wings in class. Cost to change your name: $150. People she will persuade: 0. The stupidity: Priceless," and "Man playing with pet rat accidentally sets ribbon tied to rat's tail on fire. Hilarity ensues after flaming, terrified rat attempts to outrun fire." After some brief laughter, I started to think about the "Gate Keeper Theory" which we discussed in class. Granted many of the sources stated above aren't the most respectable, but still it makes me wonder how much proof reading goes into each article that is published, posted, or put on TV. Perhaps varying degrees... I imagine the News put on TV goes through some critical scrutiny, and News Paper probably more, but how much of this really goes for online reporting? Are reporters, and their editors, more worried about meeting quotas then quality reporting? I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt, yet with Florida's WFTV's News 9 taking the time to report on a local's flaming rat... it's got to make me wonder. 

I also found this video from CSI: New York, attempting to use complicated technical jargon to confuse their audience. Yet for those of us who know what a GUI is, visual basic, and how to track IP addresses... makes me also wonder if TV shows ever go through any sort of Gate Keeper process...