Comments on: Yet another attempt at a visual artefact

By: E-learning & Digital Cultures » Block 1: week-by-week summary (retrospective)

Sun, 13 Dec 2009 23:07:05 +0000

[...] 1 than perhaps any of the other blocks. I took another stab at creating more visual artefacts (still and moving images) and got into an interesting discussion with Sian about Kress (who I find [...]

By: Tony McNeill

Tony McNeill — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:40:07 +0000

@Nicola Osborne
Hi Nicola,
Great comments – I wasn’t sure you were disagreeing with Kress or with my take on Kress. I think the latter but I thought your arguments could be read as opposing Kress’s distinction too. I like your key point that “Everything about the digital text is mediated by format, placement and other visual elements”, underlining the point that most digital texts are designed spaces that, as you put it “lead behaviour” (i.e. what element users should to attend to first, where to go next). But I think this argument is in opposition to Kress who claims that digital texts, often informed by the logic of the image, have multiple entry points and reading paths. Your argument, if I interpret it correctly, is that readers/viewers’ attention is directed to a single entry point and a generally single reading path. Finally, you mention the unitentionally funny microsoft phone ad as exemplifying the power of the logo and the brand it stands in for. I sort of agree about their power but hasn’t it always been thus (i.e. not a characteristic of a presumed ‘new media age’) – e.g, coca-cola, Mercedes? Strange things now is that ‘cool’ brands are, more often than not, techie (Apple, Google etc.).

By: silvanad

silvanad — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:51:08 +0000

Hi Tony,

Like Tracy, I didn’t get that it wasn’t a video. I just thought something was the matter that it didn’t work. (Thanks Tracy for figuring it out!) And with your explanation Tony, I understand what you are doing. But in this case, the dominant image was the YouTube video and when the video didn’t work most of us thought there was an error (except for the brilliant Tracy). So this visual needed textual support – which is your point – so it worked!

By: Nicola Osborne

Nicola Osborne — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 15:33:31 +0000

OK firstly I agree with Tracy – Mindfuck is the word

Having read your blog post I’m not sure I’m entirely in agreement re Kress and visual vs. textual. Everything about the digital text is mediated by format, placement and other visual elements. Even in the physical world I will choose which care to sit in, which magazine or book to buy, which CD to listen to partly on the basis of font. Yes, it does sound ridiculous but I know it has super high impact for me.

One of the interesting things about web 2.0 (which I agree puts text in rude health) is how similar the design and layout of sites tends to be as these visual shortcuts lead you in a way that text cannot replace. Layout and visual shortcuts lead behaviour and in an attention deprived space you need you users to be able to work out the function and usage of your site as quickly as possible. Icons become ubiquitous (smilies, mini avatars, calendar, link, logout icons all appear in the tiny corner of this page that I am now looking at or instance) and globally recognized icons are crucial to navigate the space – RSS icons, blank facial boxes to indicate an incomplete profile, stars for favourite pages, brand logos. Indeed strong but similarly formatted (the square is king) logos really matter in a web 2.0 world where social services appear across many sites and must flag up their inclusion in a tiny amount of screen estate.

The new Windows Mobile ad* is perhaps the biggest recent endorsement of the value of digital brand logos – they are attempting to sell handsets with the new OS almost entirely on the basis of logos and, key to this, Facebook and Twitter despite neither of these being Windows owned icons. You also see an enormous number of cameras with YouTube logos which help sell the camera on the basis of compatibility as the logo is shortcut to understanding what is possible (even though just about all cameras that take video would be compatible with/without the logo). I think this is the same thinking that saw the “intel inside” logo proliferate on computers in the ’90s. The brand is just as powerful as it ever was and on the small screen of a computer (or a smaller mobile screen) that brand logo must concisely communicate coherent values and link to core functionality carrying much more weight than was ever expected in a print world.

*I could only find a link to the French dub which seems to include Twitter but exclude Facebook: http://www.strimoo.com/video/17497099/Pub-Windows-phone-Ad-Dailymotion.html

By: tracy

tracy — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 02:10:42 +0000

No disappointment at all, it made me think – and that is always a good thing

By: E-learning & Digital Cultures » Kress-fallen

E-learning & Digital Cultures » Kress-fallen — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 18:12:46 +0000

[...] comments on one of my visual artefacts has got me thinking about the arguments of Gunther Kress. In this [...]

By: Sarah Payne

Sarah Payne — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 16:14:00 +0000

Surely a collection of images still rely on an entry point if they are intended to tell a story? It is no good showing the images in a disjointed manner so we see the end before the beginning…

By: Tony McNeill

Tony McNeill — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 16:12:30 +0000

@sian Thanks Sian, great comments meriting their own blog post.

By: sian

sian — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:55:25 +0000

Ah, now I get it! Thanks Tony and Tracy. But isn’t Kress’s point not so much that the written text is dead, but that contemporary (digital) texts are designed according to the ‘logic of the image’. In other words, even if they are mainly textual, there are multiple ‘entry points’, user-defined reading paths and many ways in, in terms of where we start with making meaning. And this would apply to the YouTube screen, to the hypertext or to the new visually-informed print textbook design equally?

By: Tony McNeill

Tony McNeill — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:00:33 +0000

Hi Tracy, no, I don’t have many comments at all – except from you which is why you are my current favourite fellow student. This could change though if the comments dry up !

I’m afraid my image is quite crude really. Firstly, it’s a screenshot of the Wesch video which is already very textual. Then, overlaid on top of it are a number of screen shots of other bits of the YouTube page the video is sitting in: comments, description, tags etc.. These were added as layers in Photoshop and their opacity lowered to 25% to allow the ‘bottom’ layer – i.e the original screenshot of the Wesch video – to show through.

I had 10 mins spare and I wanted to make the point that although Kress may argue for the growing importance of the visual in digital culture as part of the move from ‘page to screen’, I still think text is king. Visual media sites like YouTube and Flickr are incredibly textual – titles, descriptions, comments, tags, sets, favourites, groups etc.. The visual is usually filtered through the prism of the textual or, if you prefer, we often apprehend the visual only once it has been mediated by text, shaping our expectations and interpretations.

Sorry to disappoint: no mindfuck, just a crude image making (badly) a simple point.