I agree a lot with Jon Kolko’s ideas during this chapter. \u00a0One idea is that Interaction Design is the “design of behavior, can contribute to, shift and shape, and even help to control the normative frames that describe cultural change.” \u00a0I believe that, as designers, we need to continue to develop and modify culture around us, and hopefully for the better. \u00a0Usability definitely plays a role in shaping culture. \u00a0When designers create successful new technology, society believes that everything should operate in the same fashion. \u00a0For example, take the story about Professor Ames’ daughter thinking that a magazine should operate like a tablet\/phone. \u00a0She is perfect example as to what society has evolved into, and that it takes time for users to adapt to different operations. \u00a0Another idea that Kolko brings up is invisible manifestation. \u00a0As this is intriguing, and may help recent graduated students entering the job market by not having a potential job ruined by parting pictures\/videos, it can definitely be dangerous. \u00a0This anonymity can foster hate, violence, and other societal taboos. \u00a0But, on the plus side, it may give people the freedom to be themselves. \u00a0Technology advances rapidly, and the delay between when it is finished and the availability in the marketplace can be a hinderance. \u00a0One issue I find with society, due to technology advancements, is that there is a lack of communication. \u00a0I would rather talk to someone on the phone or in face, but there are many people who can text someone all day, but put in a social environment cannot talk to others. \u00a0Technology has made it a lot easier for physical communication to phase out. \u00a0I really liked the point in the Discursive Design about designing a product it’s goal is for organic communication. \u00a0As my opinions of technology is that it is helpful and useful, I hate it as much as I love it. \u00a0One idea that I did not normally think about is that technology can be empowering, which Kolko even stated that it is not a common view. \u00a0I admire Kolko for stating that Interactive Designers need to “advocate for humanity at all levels.” \u00a0As I am happy blaming technology for societal problems of lack of communication, it is not entirely technology’s fault. \u00a0Society let it happen, because it is easier. \u00a0As much as designers need to try and incorporate social interactions in designs, society needs to be open to communicating with personal interactions again.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
I agree a lot with Jon Kolko’s ideas during this chapter. \u00a0One idea is that Interaction Design is the “design of behavior, can contribute to, shift and shape, and even help to control the normative frames that describe cultural change.” \u00a0I believe that, as designers, we need to continue to develop and modify culture around … <\/p>\n