Music 256a Reading Response 7, Fall 2021
Ray Gifford
Chapter 7: Game Design

I will be responding to principle 7.3: "Technology should strive to get out of the way of human interaction" in chapter 7 of Artful Design. Yet, it should possibly facilitate it; and the "more familiar the relationship, the less the design should impose on people". So it should help to facilitate interaction "as invisibly as possible". This idea that technology has the power to, and does help to, connect us; and that it should do so, then get out of the way is an interesting point to me. There aren't many things that come to mind, when I try to think of ways in which technology has helped me to connect with others, where I have felt that I could forget about the technology itself. This principle also brings up the discussion in class, regarding building a Social Network that facilitates human connection in a non-intrusive way. As this class goes on, it's becoming harder and harder for me to separate "design" from money, products, and services. It's interesting to think that it seems to be very difficult for someone to design something that allows users to connect without profiting off of them. It seems difficult for designers to not somehow capitalize on the size of their user base, in some way. For me, it is really this last point of Principle 7.4: 'Values of a social tool', which lists 'transparency of use' as a value, that seems most valuable. All platforms with users, are arguably useful to some degree. I can think of many that allow for expressivity. However, I can only think of a few that promote authenticity, and that feel fully transparent.

Something that comes to mind, that is a social platform of sorts, that is useful, and that is transparent, is Duolingo. However, I would say that it doesn't necessarily promote authenticity. The designers, are from the same lab that made the Captcha. They too felt pressured to capitalize the large number of people that their tool attracts, due to its usefulness, to do work... and generate income. Captcha, was useful in that it provided additional security to users, and was originally intended to help digitize books 1 word at a time. Where a few words are presented to the user, and if the user labeles a known word correctly, the computer has a certain level of confidence that the second work is also correct. It then averages response to digitize that word. Similarly, Duolingo was designed with the intention of translating the internet into many different languages. Where users have the massive benefit of learning a new language, and along the way may help to translate web pages, along with other users, for points and experience. Their answers are discussed, and similarly averaged. The intentions of these tools were very transparent, and Duolingo in particular promoted social interaction with many other users... mostly in the form of comments and question forums. I did wonder what it would look like if they also paired people up as language partners, to practice speaking. Or maybe as a language exchange. Doing so, might greatly change the use of the platform, and they may as a result loose their revenue stream. So instead, they seem to be pairing you up with a virtual practice partner. Where you may take part in supervised learning once again. What I found to be a far superior language learning social platform, is iTalki. This platform, unlike Duolingo, was centered around language learning, and language exchange with people from around the world. Peer-to-peer learning. And it's where I met some of my good friends, that we've expanded into somewhat of a cultural exchange... visiting each other's hometown and showing each other around. This platform, allowed me to not only connect with people and make new lasting friendships, but also to learn many Spanish dialects that are not taught in school... and definitely not Duolingo. I think this is one example that I have felt perhaps checks all of the boxes, being very useful, promotes authentic connections and communication with others, and transparency