I'm a PhD student and researcher in Digital Media at Georgia Tech. I am passionate about complex problems at the intersection of Science, Technology, and Society. I combine methods from social sciences, Human Computer Interaction, design, and art to elicit novel insights and open up possibilities of knowing. Through mixed methods research, I explore problems like labor and affect automation, the platform economy, and computers as co-creative agents. Currently, I have affiliations with the Expressive Machinery Lab and Experimental Civics Lab.
What is in your about me? I have letters. Words, poems and excess-thoughts, Drawings, textures. Transparencies and stories. Sound.
I am a creative thinker and a researcher. I like thinking with visuals, stories, materials , metaphors and concepts. Decanted and contaminated concepts that go through fermentation and spill out of their containers.
The concept of 'time' for example, can take multiple meanings when thinking about interactions mediated by technology. One way this comes up often during my work as an experiences designer and researcher is in the meaning and the embodiment of micro-interactions.
Micro-interactions can give visual and temporal feedback to those experiencing a technological artifact.
Beyond usability, micro-interactions add textures and flavor to the experiences of technology.
But another, more economic
way of understanding time during interactions with digital artifacts relates to "decisions". Drawing from behavioral scientific traditions, micro-interactions also point to the breakage of decision points.
These decisions of so called 'users' are guided by designers and experience researchers, but also economic infrastructures and technologies. Not to mention the 'users' themselves and their environment.
Micro-interactions and time can be seen as places where users make contracts with digital tools.
Think about clicking.
What does it mean to 'click' on a button, a banner, a hyperlink? Clicking may have different material,
Your experimental setup also may conceive of individuals as belonging to different categories: clicks, like bits are not the same. These categorizations, such as gender, race, income, nationality, resting heart rate,
eye color, education, etc., mean that your work as a .................................... reinforces, resists
................ reinforces by resisting
......resists by reinforcing
...............parasitizes dialectics perhaps
But let's go back to our question. So what is time in micro-interactions?
Who are the 'individuals' you define as 'users'?
Where is 'individuality'? At the other side of a click?
Are individuals really so IN-dividual?
One way out of this cognitivist perspective is embodiment. Bodies exceed categories. Individuals are complex categories and exceed their categorization constantly. Partly because categories are made by bodies and have bodies themselves.
But bodies are radically uncategorizable.
If categorization is to be tamed, bodies cannot.
Being Begins by begging with your voice.
what are you English typer?
A King Ding A Ling
A con, a queen
the sounds that make
TING T I N G T/f/I/f/N/f/G T*/letter*/I/*better*/N/*debtor*/G
And then the 'user' dissolves in the thing. Not a network. A body.
Not a complex nest of categories.
individuals are complex categories that are full of binaries, partial symmetries. Partiality makes for complexity,
what is a category
if not the dissolution of itself into otherness
it-self (1)(0) vs others(0)
COMPLEXITY IN BINARies