Inventing the Medium - Designing the Message
In her path breaking work, Hamlet on the Holodeck (1997), author and digital evangelist Janet Murray set out to examine how computers have profoundly changed how people tell stories. The most significant aspect of her study is its emphasis on understanding the intersection between the unique properties digital environments comprises and how they intersect or transcend traditional approaches to communication and storytelling. Fast forward fourteen years later, and Murray continues her efforts to bridge the gulf between past and present approaches to learning in the humanities. In Inventing the Medium: Principles of Interaction Design as a Cultural Practice (2011), Murray demonstrates that since the design of digital artifacts are only decades old in comparison to previous communication interface technologies, which have been refined and developed over thousands of years, that the continual progression of digital technology “has been so rapid that technical innovation is outstripping design” (Murray, 2). As a result of these rapid advancements a fundamental disconnect between design and practice has arisen, which leaves the humanities often at a disadvantage in comparison to other specialty fields in the academy. In order to level the playing field and establish the humanities’ place within the rapid change that is currently being conducted through digital artifacts, Murray has called for an increased emphasis on digital design practices. The perspective she provides, according to Murray forms the foundation of “a new framework that I believe can help to speed the process of useful and lasting design innovation by focusing on the collective cultural task of inventing the underlying medium” (Murray, 3).
The ideas presented in Inventing the Medium reminds me quite a bit of two other theorists who wrote extensively on how communication technologies can transform society: Marshall McLuhan’s Understanding Media (1964) and Jay Bolter’s Writing Space (1991). McLuhan and Bolter’s works are reactions to the mass dissemination of communication technologies (television for McLuhan, pre-internet hyperlinks for Bolter), just as Murray’s work is a response to the advent of social network platforms and mobile cellular communication technology. The challenges that Murray calls for in her own work echoes a similar argument raised by Marshall McLuhan in Understanding Media. McLuhan states that any medium can either amplify or accelerate existing processes. With this perspective in mind, he argues that a “change of scale or pace or shape or pattern into human association, affairs, and action,” ultimately results in profound “psychic, and social consequences” (McLuhan, 8-9). Bolter in his own way presents a similar case by stating “writing electronically involves an aspect of materiality, because it can’t be divorced from physical economics” (Bolter, 18). He then goes on argue, “cultures mold technologies and devices to their purposes” (Bolter, 20).
Table 1.1 on page 33 sufficiently demonstrates the principles introduced by McLuhan, Bolter, and Murray. Through examining the different components of various inscription technologies, Murray conducts a compelling analysis into the intersections and overlap between different modes of physical inscription, logical transmission codes, and cultural conventions of meaning. What makes projects in the digital humanities unique from other practices is that “in the digital medium, inscription and transmission technologies are constantly changing, subverting existing formats and opening up new design possibilities” (Murray, 34). The endless array of design possibly that are available to digital historians at first may have seemed to be incredibly daunting, yet as these technologies become more user-friendly and accessible, the endless design possibilities seems to be more of a strength and opportunity than a weakness or threat. Murray goes on to show that the interconnected nature of digital design projects “has also profoundly affected legacy media enterprises. Media now appears to be something cut, pasted, reassembled, and distributed with ease” (Murray, 57-58) The fragmented nature of design has led to an increase in participatory structures and also a dependency on a number of crowdsourcing data in order to be successfully carried out.
When assessing the best do-it-yourself digital tools provided by the Digital Research Tools directory for Roadside Memories, our team was often divided between a selected tool’s practical application and aesthetic design. In the case of StoryMaps JS we found that the story maps we were able to manufacture were quite eye catching, but difficult to execute in the narrative we wanted. So this then raises the question of what to do when faced with a tool that meets your visual needs but not your design wants (and visa versa). Do you sacrifice one over the other? In the case of Roadside Memories we plan to combine the best aspects of several digital tools in order to organize our goal to create artificial historical road trips. Yet even this choice entails a bit of compromise. Although we will build on a combination of spatial mapping and timeline organization programs, our original intended narrative will need to be adjusted to fit for these changes. When developing a project that incorporates design technologies, the designer often needs to find new and creative ways in which to present the narrative he or she wishes to showcase. This is easier said than done, however. Ultimately the best signs of a successful project can be seen in its ability overlap between traditional and non-traditional design practices. By bringing together the familiar and unfamiliar, both designers and site visitors can form a relationship that continues to evolve and change over time.
