This transcript of an interview of Dan Saffer about his manifesto for gestural patterns for touch interaction is very pertinent. It’s mostly about this wiki resource which aims at collecting and disseminating gestural interface information and patterns, such as found on such devices as the iPhone and Wii (following a discussion Adaptive Path’s blog).

Some excerpts of this interview:

“How do you document this gesture where I’m sweeping my hand across the screen?” (…) This is our generation’s drag and drop.”
(…)
I felt it was a really important thing for interaction designers to be doing because, otherwise, we’re going to start to end up with a thousand different ways of turning on my TV where it’s like, “Is this the Microsoft TV where I have to snap my fingers three times or is it the Apple one where I twirl around in a circle?”
(…)
one of the nice things about having it be in a completely digital medium is that one of the problems with gestures is certainly documenting them. How do you describe something that’s not very ambiguous? It’s awfully difficult with words to describe gestures or even in diagrams to describe gestures.So having the ability to eventually put up movie clips showing this as a pattern with people moving their forefinger and thumb apart, for instance, having that kind of rich experience would be really nice on the website.“

(Picture taken from a wii game usability test I ran few months ago)

The examples he gives revolves around the Wii or the iPhone:

“The Wii certainly is very much about sort of movement in space. You’re not really touching anything except the controller. You’re kind of indirectly using a gesture. With the touch screen on the iPhone and other things, your fingertip is actually touching the device that you’re manipulating. So there is this gradation there.“

Why do I blog this? this is indeed an interesting issue, how you describe these movements? can we have a grammar (i.e. a set of patterns). This has some tight connections with a project I am involved in that tries to map the wiimote and nunchuk movements of existing games in a database, this will then allow to analyze them and document their relative importance.

Space Time Play Computer Games, Architecture and Urbanism: The Next Level, edited by Friedrich von Borries, Steffen P. Walz, Matthias Böttger (Birkhäuser/Springer Online bookstore). A big compendium of 140 writers, the book “explores the architectural history of computer games and the future of ludic space”. The table of content is impressive and I am looking forward to read as it seems to be a blueprint about this topic.

You can fin on-line the introduction about “Why should an architect care about computer games and What can a game designer take from architecture?“, which has some interesting perspectives and summarizes very well the issues as stake.

“The spaces of computer games range from two-dimensional representations of three-dimensional spaces to complex constructions of social communities to new conceptions of, applications for and interactions between existent physical spaces. (…) The spaces of the digital games that constitute themselves through
the convergence of “space,” “time” and “play” are only the beginning. What are the parameters of these new spaces? To what practices and functional specifications do they give rise? What design strategies will come into operation because of them? “

Of particular resonance with my research will be:

“THE ARCHITECTURE OF COMPUTER AND VIDEO GAMES, traces a short, spatiotemporal history of the architecture of digital games. Here, architects are interested in the question of what spatial qualities and characteristics arise from computer games and what implications these could have for contemporary architecture. For game designers and researchers, on the other hand, it’s about determining what game elements constitute space and which spatial attributes give rise to specific types of interaction. Moreover, it’s not just about the gamespaces in the computer, but about the places where the games are actually played; playing on a living-room TV is different from playing in front of a PC, which, in turn, is different from playing in a bar.

The third level, UBIQUITOUS GAMES, on the other hand, demonstrates how real space – be it a building, city or landscape – changes and expands when it is metamorphosed into a “game board” or “place to play” by means of new technologies and creative game concepts. (…) What happens when the spaces and social interactions of computer games are superimposed over physical space? What new forms and control systems of city, architecture and landscape become possible? (…) The migration of computer games onto the street – that is, the integration of physical spaces into game systems – creates new localities
(…)
4th level (…) how the ludic conquest of real and imagined gamespace becomes an instrument for the design of space-time. “

Why do I blog this? tons of material for my current research, I am expecting this to be good for thoughts for future projects. I also wrote a chapter with Fabien about how pervasive gaming can be seen as a re-interpretation of >la dérive situationiste (Guy Debord): a new way to experience the city environment.

Having work recently on implications of web/web2.0 practices for the video game industry, I was interested in the relationships between social software and video games. Trying to have a quiet look into things (as usual), I tried to make a sort of typology of the different directions at stake here:

First, a simple option would be to simply think of “games” as social objects (in the sense Jyri describes it), which would lead to services allowing people to discus, comment, talk, criticize games or to use games or application played as a way to form a model of peers. In a sense, it would be about taking games (their physical instantiation) as belongings that can be tracked: My Things is a social platform that enable such a function. And if there are not physical instantiation? Well, Wakoopa would fit given that it “tracks what kind of software or games you use, and lets you create your own software profile“. You can then share, tag, comment and web-two-point-o-ize (about) games.

A second possibility is that one could thing about “social software” as a social layer on top of games, i.e. as a way to find people to play games with (a problem referred to as “LFG”: Looking for Group). This is the sort of service one can benefit from platforms such as Rupture (”Rupture connects you with the real people you play with online. You can automatically publish your character and guild profiles to the web, share pictures, chat with friends and recruit new people to play with.“) or Magelo (”Launched in 2001, the Character Profile was the first tool on the market that could create a persistence of an in game character out of the game trough a simple web representation (…) Another sample is our proprietary software client, Magelo Update (MU). MU act as a 100% reliable game data collector, as well as a synchronization and authentication tool for Magelo Characters Profiles.“). What is interesting here is both the profile building (either explicitly or automatically created through in-game data collection) and the social networking capabilities. There are still lots of room in the design space here, especially if you think that most of the work has been done for hardcore-gamers-oriented MMO. Adding a social layer to more casual MMO would be a good option. On that LFG topic, see also here for a discussion about Facebook and gaming.

Finally, the third possibility to think about a social software as a game itself. An interesting direction is the one taken by Justin Hall in his “passive multiplayer gaming project (” a game that you get points and levels in based on the surfing you do on the Internet“). I’ve heard some other projects (like Playoo) are working on that social+game direction too (not in the PMOG concept though).

The underlying variable here is to think about the relationships between the game and the social software. The steps I described is actually a continuum from which social software are totally independent or a new layer on top of games OR the game itself. Anyhow, this topic will be surely addressed at LIFT08.

Why do I blog this some thoughts for social computing and gaming design space, potential material for further talks and actions.

Beyond blowing at your DS to inflate bubbles in Nintendogs, other games make interesting uses of the microphones:

Spectrobes:

“dark energy creatures called the Krawl, and they’re now invading your system. The only way to defeat them is to excavate and reawaken ancient creatures that are buried deep underground, called Spectrobes. (…) minigame and involves making a certain level of noise, with the tone and pitch of that noise playing a part in deciding what kind of Spectrobe you will get once the process is complete.“

Dragon Tamer Sound Spirit:

“Dragon Tamer: Sound Spirit is basically your standard Pokemon monster battling game, but in order to get new dragons, you record sounds from different instruments and sources with the DS mic.

This is kind of like what Monster Rancher for the Playstation, where different random CDs would generate monsters with different statistics and abilitie“

Why do I blog this? interestingly enough, the mobile game industry, which has the perfect affordance and habits to control things with the voice (i.e. a cell phone…) has never released something similar (although I’ve seen some prototypes) on mass markets. Interesting HCI anyway… and on the NDS, as usual.