I had quite an interesting time trying to figure out what exactly the authors were trying to convey in the article.
The authors argue that many ideas and such knowledge are not only contained within pictographs, but also within their structure, location, orientation, and construction material. I was a bit confused when reading this; I understand how ideas and knowledge can be contained within pictographs, I had a hard time understanding how it could be within the structure, location, orientation, and construction material.
As an avid computer game player, I started to understand how ideas and knowledge are used in pictographs. One game I often play, Starcraft , has been around for a long long time. There are certain aspects of the game that do not offer any explanation, rather it is up to the user to figure out what they mean. For example, many of the controls on the screen don't offer explanations as to how they are to be used or what for, they just make it trial and error. Amazingly, even though there is no instruction on how or what to do, gamers such as myself, don't have a problem deciphering what the picture means.
We live in a society that is driven by multimedia. All the time we are using pictures to tell a story or to explain something. I agree with the authors when they say when ideas and knowledge can be contained in pictures.
Were you able to understand the vague symbols when you first started playing the game, or was it only after you used them that you discovered their meaning? It is somewhat interesting how video games can be allowed to take this approach, using non-standardized symbols which eventually take root in the player's mind through use and experience.
ReplyDelete