WARNING: This one is a bit of a heavy read. So, if you feel like some academia, proceed ahead.
Text as image and how context and individual interpretation affect meaning.
KEYWORDS:
Transposition of text, context, individual interpretation, semiotics, organisational structures
1 INTRODUCTION
Texts are static in their printed forms. The transposition of texts into an interactive interface is a significant element of organisational structures, which are essentially design constructs that aid the viewer in reading and interpreting an artefact. This solicits a further survey as this “new” writing environment [Kendrik, 2001] needs a visual language to decode the underlying message produced by the sign.
The enquiry of this research paper examines a key area of interactive design as well as its dynamic nature. Accompanied by a semiotic framework of denotation and connotation, I aim to explore the process of transposing texts into images (as one form of semantic organisational structure) and how context and individual interpretations affect meaning. The outcome of this would then form part of the identification on some emerging patterns of understanding (relevant to my Honours Research), which are currently shaping the way meaning is being designed within graphical user interfaces.
This paper will first define the appropriate keywords in order to grasp an understanding of the subject matter and then subsequently followed by elements of organisational structure and their affect on meaning.
2 DEFINITIONS
2.1 TEXT
Text is referred to here as the written typographic element in printed works. The transposition of text into an image is the process of converting printed textual data into the interactive space, either online or offline, and the image output becomes a sign itself, hence, text as image.
2.2 SEMIOTICS
Semiotics understands that a sign is comprised of a signifier (a signs physical form) and a signified (the meaning or idea expressed by the sign) as pioneered by the philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce and linguist Ferdinand de Saussure [Crow, 2003]. It has a broad coverage and there are many principles contained within this framework, however, focus will be given to the concept of denotation and connotation so as to attain a deeper understanding into one of its principles.
Roland Barthes, a follower of Saussure, distinguished the idea of the part played by the reader in the exchange between themselves and the content [Crow, 2003]. His premise into how an individual reads a sign identified two levels of signification (conveying of meaning): denotation and connotation [Crow, 2003]. Denotation is simply the literal meaning of a sign while connotation is the subjective characteristics emitted by a sign. For example, in a photo of a book, a book is a book regardless of who, what, where and how it was photographed (denotation). However, in reality the graphic treatment of the photograph such as lighting techniques, camera angle, soft-focus, colour tones and cropping all change the way in which we read this sign, e.g. it could be read as a historical book, a modern book, an ancient book or a children’s book. Therefore the connotations of a sign affect the way we interpret a design artefact which, upon application to an interactive space, has significant implications on organisational structures due to its multi-dimensional nature.
3 ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURES
3.1 ESTABLISHMENT
The manifestation of human oral sounds into physical visual signs, through the invention of alphabetic writing, enabled an interface to hold information as a kind of repository where thoughts could now be recorded on a surface and alleviated the constraints of memory. Brian Rotman, in his paper The Alphabetic Body [Rotman, 2002], holds that
“The alphabet is an extraordinary simple, robust technology with a powerful viral capacity to disseminate and consolidate itself; a medium able to interface across multiple linguistic platforms and inscribe the speech of a huge variety of languages.”
This is a declaration of the alphabet as a dynamic visual sign that is able to transcend to various levels of communication and its attributes, as Rotman argue, doesn’t notate speech as such but writes down what’s said but not what is said, the words spoken not the manner of their saying and transcribes the voice but it is silent about the sound. However, transcribing speech into writing has its constraints as he additionally alleges, “… it also impinges on and constructs this body in relation to the construction of other bodies – the visual, symbolic, but also the gestural – which continue to haunt it”. This condition of selective interpretation, as alphabetic writing does not have the capacity to portray human gestures, emotions or movement, prompts the implications into how the transposition of texts into images within an interactive multi-dimensional space is affected by external factors, namely semiotics.
3.2 TEXT AS IMAGE
Michelle Kendrik outlines in her paper Interactive Technology and the Remediation of the Subject of Writing that “over the last decade, emerging “hypertextual” forums, the World Wide Web, and digital video disks (their increased bandwidths and storage capacities giving them greatly enhanced hypermedia capabilities) have all been touted more-or-less successfully as “new” writing environments”, the semiotic framework, specifically denotation and connotation, is an instrumental factor in understanding individual interpretation of signs in an interactive interface.
In an interactive space, the transposition of texts into images can convey an ambiguous message. For instance, consider looking at a square with an arrow pointing left inside it. If the word “RIGHT” was written underneath it, confusion would occur because we associate that word with a preconceived directional sign. However, if the word “LEFT” was placed instead, then it would make sense but only in a two-dimensional space. In a multi-dimensional user interface, the viewer can move around the shape. So, the word “LEFT” could also stand for the direction of “RIGHT” as the viewer see’s its reverse side. The implication of this is that there is greater consideration that needs to be taken in place about the context of a sign as a fundamental element in individual interpretation.
Peirce affirms that the meaning of any sign is affected by who is reading that sign [Crow, 2003], however, it must also be noted that the situated context of a sign cannot simply be ignored. This is evident in an interactive space where design artefacts such as textual navigational elements (eg. home link) acts as both a hypertext and a hyperlink. In the arbitrary line ‘…is where the notion of home resides in the site…’, the word ‘home’ is underlined and coloured in blue (a semiotic convention that we now come to define as a link to something). If this wasn’t formatted in this fashion, for example ‘home’ was just in bold and nothing else so that it reads ‘… is where the notion of home resides in the site…’ then the semantics change as ‘home’ alters from being a navigational construct to just simply an emphasis of a point. Therefore, connotation, as the semiotic principle in governance, affects the way meaning is constructed in organisational structures.
According to Kendrik, hypertext theorists over the last decade have continually celebrated the connection between a technology of links and nodes and the presumed associative ability of the human mind [Kendrik, 2001]. This translates to, as she additionally paraphrases Vannevar Bush [Bush, 1945], asserting that the human mind operates by association. Hypertext then, can be illustrative of human mind cognition with its immediacy and associative structure.
This associative nature is translated through the semiotic classifications of a sign as indexical, especially in an interactive user interface as indexical signs require that there is a direct link between the sign and the object – for example, a tail is an index of a dog. Thus, hypertext, as an organisational structure, operates within the perimeters of individual interpretation. How an individual understands what a link is, which common convention usually displays it as an underlined blue text, forms the connotative aspect of interpretation.
Interpreting hypertexts, as a final image output in transposing texts from printed literature into an interactive space, exposes a different kind of comprehension. As it is likened to how the mind operates, Kendrik’s research stipulates that its inherent qualities incite the notion of collaboration where individuals commit to working with others and establish or further develop content through this interconnected network. The subjectivity of the text is revealed not just as a denotation but also the context it appears in alters how the design artefact is interpreted as the author’s intention could conflict with the receiver’s understanding. For example, the hyperlinked text ‘stop’ could convey an action to cease something, however, its state of being a link creates a contradictory disposition as it insinuates a call to further explore the artefact, yet its denotative meaning indicates otherwise. The greatest effect this has, upon application to an interactive interface, is in the matter of ambiguity and effective interface design, which is significant to the foundation of organisational structures and how individuals interpret them.
Kendrik submits that the revolution of print, made possible by Gutenberg’s movable type – and all of the consequent changes accorded to it – is finally being overturned by a technology equally powerful and more naturally aligned with human cognition. Hypertext is then heightened by its registration to an interactive space where the state of an already interconnected configuration is amplified by individual’s use of hypertexts and hyperlinks. This is best exemplified in interactive sites like youtube.com where users are able to posts (hypertext and hyperlinked) responses in the comment box as well as embed links within the video itself. The reader is then playing a part in this process by applying their knowledge of the systematic coding of the image which interweaves with the semantic organisational structures that are evident in graphical user interfaces. However, we must remember to observe the semiotic principles of denotation and connotation as these media contexts are complex, and engage with many layers of reading, interpretation, participation, and observation. It is essentially the interconnected context of a denotative sign that enables subjectivity, thus, connotation.
Furthermore, Edward Tufte notes on his paper The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint: Picking Out Corrupts Within that “the prevailing style of a particular place and period deeply affects the character of artwork” [Tufte, 2006]. This notion of setting and its contextual relationship with the design artefact are key elements in analysing how external factors affect meaning, especially when the object is situated within a multi- dimensional interactive space.
Organisational structures, within an interactive space, require clarity and its manifestation is imperative to individual interpretation. Tufte urges that we should find a better tool to make presentations [Tufte, 2006]. What he is referring to here, is the commonplace practice of Powerpoint presentations utilising impoverished space and so it is suggested that the audience should be provided with at least one mode of information that allows them to control the order and pace of learning. This notion is applicable to organisational structures as they function as signs in an interactive space, which ultimately perform a visual communication role. It could come in the form of navigational buttons that acts as intermissions, varied textual data or typographic weight that acts as affordances for user choice within the interactive space.
3.3 INTERACTIVE SPACE
In a two-dimensional space, part of what semiotics deals with is naming and categorising organisational elements. The semiotic classifications developed by Peirce and Saussure are key considerations as the notion of signs being categorised into icons, index and symbols provide a foundation for classifying design artefacts. Iconic signs represent the objects clearly (e.g. a road sign showing a car), indexical signs represent concepts that we have learned to associate with a particular sign (e.g. smoke is an indicator of fire) and symbolic signs rely on learned meanings from the viewer (e.g. the recycling symbol). In the ‘home’ text example previously, the sign uses interchangeable notions of indexical to symbolic signs as the context of the design artefact is through the acquisition of learned principles from the individual, which then consequently factors into their interpretation.
Fundamentally, its execution within an interactive environment creates multi-linearity in individual interpretation as in one hand there is denotation and connotation that subsequently follows and on the other is the overall sign of the design artefact. A text is initially read, then interpreted which, afterwards, is subject to what the individual knows and how they see the design artefact as epitomised in the ‘home’ text example. This notion of having many layers of connections integrated with dynamic visual stimuli is a typified notion of Brian Rotman’s principle of parallelism.
Parallelism, as Rotman explains on his paper Going Parallel, ‘concerns co-presence, co- occurrence [and] simultaneity’ which could also be interpreted as multi-tasking in a collaborative environment. Meanwhile, Serialism ‘concerns linear order, sequence [and] process’ [Rotman, 2000].
Therefore, the above notion exemplifies with what Rotman contends in ‘[choosing] parallel computation, or more exactly, parallel and distributed machine-architecture along with operating systems and programs, which allow one to calculate many things at once’ [Rotman, 2000]. It is the collaborative aspect being hinted here that propels progress. Parallelism, within this multi-dimensional space, then allows an interpretative and associative semiotic structure for both the designer and the viewer because of the presence of various interactive elements such as comment boxes, ratings through selection of stars, and interactive hypermedia.
In an interactive space, organisational structures are both independent and interdependent linked elements. Independent as a sign in itself and interdependent due to the context it is in which is synchronous to Rotman’s comment that parallel computational practices separate tasks, data, instructions, memory and distribute them –in various different ways – between separate but interconnected elements, which perform their operations simultaneously [Rotman, 2000]. The effect of this, in the overall schema, is a system of signs that operates singularly as well as being part of a broader context. How individuals interpret it then, depends upon their perspective of looking at the sign itself or the sign as part of the overall context.
Additionally, Kendrik paraphrases the philosopher Michel Foucault asserting that “as texts restructure and blend, as they move on-line, fragment, and reform, so too does this authorial figure”[Foucault]. The individual then is becoming part of a whole, in a collaborative environment, as characterised by Rotman’s idea of parallelism. This then forms a factor into how meaning is affected into the transposition of text as image. The idea of the how author/designer intended the message to be is now modified by this collaborative space.
3.4 FIGURATIVE TOOLS
The individual’s perspective of a sign, in an interactive narrative, can be aided by figurative tools to understand its meaning. The usage of visual metaphors and imagery to convey certain system actions then become prominent in effective user- centred designs as it’s integration into an interactive graphical user interface, for example metaphoric poetry transformed into an animation, provides the viewer an affordance for interpreting the sign. These tools then factor into the subjectivity of a text which is a connotative principle in the underlying semiotic process.
In an interactive interface, affordances are essential to the multi-dimensional nature of the space as Rotman observes the consequent rise of object-oriented programming which is a constituent factor into the foundations of interactivity [Rotman, 2000]. Its significance is in the programming implication that enables not only the designer to convey their intended message but also for the receiver to be guided into what this intention is. For example, an interaction containing multiple texts could have a selection that is pre-formatted by the designer (eg. highlighted texts) as well as the text being shaped into a particular image. The imagery connotated by this implicates how the user responds to the sign and their interpretation of it. Hence, the meaning of an organisational structure being affected by this external factor.
4 CONCLUSION
The process of transposing texts into images, within an interactive interface, produces an organisational structure that is affected by external factors. The semiotic principles of denotation and connotation are separate yet interdependent of one another as aligned to Rotman’s notion of parallelism. It instigates subjectivity and objectivity in its signification that is applicable to the image produced from the transposition of text.
Semiotician Peirce, encapsulated the notion of how context and individual interpretation affect meaning in his affirmation that ‘the meaning of any sign is affected by who is reading that sign’ [Crow, 2003].
Therefore, the semiotic framework of denotation and connotation acts as a kind of language tool that can be utilised in understanding a visual communication construct. Through this, we are able to comprehend the meaning of a sign. A further exploration into other semiotic principles and how they read a sign could provide an interesting result.
Copyright © 2019 Dizon by Design
Reproduction, distribution, transmission of any kind or otherwise is not permitted unless permission granted.
REFERENCES
Bush, V. (1945) As We May Think. Available: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/194507/bush (Accessed: May 27, 2009).
Crow, D. (2003) Visible Signs : an Introduction to Semiotics for Art and Design Students Worthing, AVA
Foucault, Michel. “What Is An Author?” in idem, Language, Counter-Memory. Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews, trans. Donald F. Bouchard and Sherry Simon (Ithaca, N.y: Cornell University Press, 1977), pp. 113-138, on p.125.
Kendrick, Michelle. (2001). ‘Interactive technology and the remediation of the subject of writing’, Configurations, 9(2), Spring, 231-251
Rotman, Brian. (2000). ‘Going parallel’, SubStance, 29(1), 56-79.
Rotman, Brian. (2002). The Alphabetic Body. Parallax, 8(1), January. 92-104.
Tufte, Edward. (2006). ‘The cognitive style of PowerPoint: Pitching out corrupts within’, In Beautiful evidence. (pp. 157-185) Cheshire, Connecticut: Graphics Press LLC.
