SYMPOSIUM WEBSITE LAUNCHED :)

http://www.ncsu.edu/graphicdesign/GradSymposium2010/

PERSONALIZED PROMPT v1

I came into this design investigation questioning the current role of Oldenburg's third place. Researchers Nicolos Ducheneut, Robert J. Moore & Eric Nickell from the Palo Alto Research Center agree that, "Online games are promising environments that could be designed to replace or, at the very least, supplement the third VIRTUAL ‘‘THIRD PLACES’’ places of the physical world." Surprisingly - and against Oldenburg's intentions - physical and virtual third places are being used similarly by the public. The biggest difference between the two spaces is the computer mediation that virtual communities require to communicate. Does this hinder a participant's ability to establish authentic human connections online? How human centered was the original design of the digital vernacular that is now standard?

For the investigations shown below, I wanted to take online conversations out of the confines of the scroll box and see how it would look and feel integrated into the environment, while taking on characteristics of spoken language.


I. Visualizing a litteral exchange of words :


message input


receiving message


view of other person receiving your message


II. Scale indicating order of dialogue:




III. Layers giving a sense of time:


message received


message input


new layer added

After getting feedback from critique, I want to keep looking at enhancing interactions in virtual communities, but where achieving a level of physical replication is not the focus.

PERSONALIZED PROMPT

current area of interest: Examining third places in the modern world

In the year 2000, PlayStation 2 ran a two year ad campaign that designated themselves as The Third Place. This statement caught the imagination of the public, even though people weren't clear on what it meant. Is the current use of the term "third place" being redefined, or are Ray Oldenburg's ideas from 1989 unscathed? If third places are adapting digitally, are these virtual spaces used in the same way by the community or does the shift to the digital realm leave behind too many particularities (like face to face contact or food) to resemble its physical predecessors? At what point are we expanding on the original concept or just talking about something new?



On a side note: I enjoyed this parody from theonion.com on the World of World of Warcraft. :)

SYMPOSIUM FORAY v3

For this project, I looked at branding as a design strategy unable to effectively connect with consumers. Seeking a clear and engaging expression, I explored various project formats that included a poster series, animation and game.

Final iteration as a flash game (intended to be played):



Unfortunately, I focused more attention on the form than the idea driving it. It almost seems contradictory to be so exploratory and experimental within a project without pushing the limits of the original concept. What might be physically engaging for a reader, like the game, does not necessarily mean that it is going to generate conversation or self reflection. I am going to work on pushing my ideas, getting more out of my class readings, and making sure to find the fun in it all. And it wouldn't hurt to stay on top of the dishes too...

SYMPOSIUM FORAY v2

This is a short animation I made that starts to visualize the relationship branding strategist have with consumers.



At the recommendation of my classmates, I am going to be investigating some demonstrative (as opposed to illustrative) approaches in order to clarify my ideas while maintaining the reader's interest.

SYMPOSIUM FORAY v1

After a lot of investigation, I focused on "branding" as a design strategy relative to the rhetoric of authenticity. I was fascinated by the contrasting variables that need to stay under consideration (e.g., consistency while being relevant and fresh) in order to ensure a long-term sustainable value. Since a misstep at any touchpoint could easily weaken a consumer's brand confidence, there are endless amounts of resources used to try and piece together the perfect branding strategy. My intent with this project was to visualize the difficulty/misalignment brands have communicating their objectives. This disconnect is physically shown with seven 8.5 x 14" one sheets. They are spaced out to imply groupings whose content you are supposed to investigate as a dialogue.

After reading the name of the piece you are confronted with the first set of posters. There is a blank sheet of paper juxtaposed with an image of a heart bleep - signifying the "birth" of a brand. I made this a part of the dialogue to give my narrative a beginning full of possibilities, in contrast to the end of the series.

A brand's effort to meticulously align with a person's perceptions, beliefs and attitude is the focus of the second set. I chose to extend the line from the previous poster and use rigid geometric shapes, coming from one source, to symbolize the branding effort, while the fickle emotional state of humans took shape as unpredictable organic waves (I sound like an alien from another planet, haha). These two elements are reaching out to each other, but their physical differences hinder the possibility of a good connection. Measuring the positive resonance of a brand or even ensuring loyalty is extremely difficult - now that consumers have the whole world to shop from with the internet - and the lack of contact shown here is partially speaking to that. But, it is also difficult to connect the brand's objectives with the people who are doing the branding...

The last set of posters is a commentary on differentiation as a main branding purpose. I extended a hand from the previous poster to represent an individual's belief that what they are outputting is going to make them stand out, even though most of the time they are just falling into a river of trendy sameness.

Interestingly enough, the gaps in dialogue between my three sets is where I think the designer's role is most pivotal (trying to connect the brand to people, etc.) and I am considering making this a visible addition. Thinking about the context of this symposium, I was unsure about how direct my point of view had to be. Without any annotations I know that these visuals could easily be read differently than I inteded, but I kind of like the idea of leaving the posters open for interpretation. I am curious to know if you think it is still too vague. I definitely tried to run with my most wild and crazy idea, so if you think I need to pull it in or jump farther, please let me know. Thank you in advance for all of your input!