Presenting information pertaining to dynamics in terms of aesthetics

22Feb09

This suggested method for reinforcing learning in field-dependents is only part of the solution. The evaluation UI must be complemented by mechanics, dynamics and aesthetics that present the salient points of each dynamic in clear terms. In other words, the designer needs to carefully consider how the user will understand the structuring of the information provided. For instance, introducing many similar concepts (the overwhelming amounts of skills, abilities and attributes prevalent in most CRPGs) that the user has to distinguish between and make informed choices about without any clear implication of what the outcome of these choices will be in aesthetic rather than mechanical terms must be avoided (Witkin et al, 1977).

Field-dependents tend to “adhere to the organization of the field as given”, which is elaborated to mean that field-dependents tend to use the existing structure in which the information is provided for concept attainment, whereas field-independents tend to establish their own structure, that is insert information into their own conceptual frameworks, rather than simply adapting the external, presented framework. This means that field-dependents may adopt the salient cues in the external structure of information regardless of whether the information is central to the problem-solving task at hand or not, while field-indepedents will impose a structure of their own onto the information, deciding what cues are salient or not and how they pertain to the task at hand. (Wikin et al, 1977)

Witkin suggests that field-independents were “more likely to impose structure spointaneously on stimulus material which lacks it”, while field-dependents left (does this mean adopted, or internalised?) the material’s external (that is, original or pre-existing) structure. This might suggest that very formalized information presentation with few salient cues causes field-dependents to attain only very general ideas of what the information actually is an expression of:

“field-dependent teachers and students made fewer distinctions among concepts. For field-dependent teachers and students, concepts clustered into a large, loosely organized group which included most of the concepts.”

This suggests that field-dependents don’t define concepts for themselves, but rely on external definitions of: They don’t explore potential meanings by applying hypotheses to the information, they rely on external established meanings. In game design terms, this could mean that field-dependent users may fail to explore or experiment with dynamics that have not been introduced with salient cues pointing out how the aesthetics and dynamics are integrated, in terms that allow users to understand the presented information without applying the hypotheses/testing approach that field-independents use for concept attainment. (Witkin et al, 1977)

Witkin suggests that structuring and analytical tendencies are linked, and that the “individual differences [...] might best be conceived as an articulated-global continuum”. The articulated structuring and analysis of the experience tends towards perceiving items as discrete from background when the field is organized, and imposes structure onto fields where there is no organization, thus perceiving it as organized. The global experience relies less on structuring and analysis, perceiving the field as given. (Witkin et al, 1977)

This sounds like field-dependents are actually better at learning concepts because they experience with fewer preconceptions and less anticipation of an apparent structure. However, field-dependents show greater adherence to a predominant context and is “likely to have difficulaty with [a] class of problems [...] where the solution depends on taking some critical element out of the context in which it is presented and restructuring the problem material so that the item is now used in a different context” (Witkin et al, 1977). In other words, field-independents impose their own structure on experience, while field-dependents relies on external structures. Witkin notes that the individual differences noticed in perception also shows in the problem-solving domain.

To summarize this discussion regarding structure and analysis, I suggest that field-dependent users will need information structured and presented so that it builds and reinforces a consistent external conceptual model of organization that the user can adopt in order to understand the integration of dynamics and aesthetics without applying a hypotheses/testing process in order to understand the meaning and application of concepts.

Information will have to be presented in a structure that enables information to be presented with distinct cues that distinguish items within a clear organization. In order to avoid the trap of formalization, each topic should have a distinct style and mode of presentation, so the user can identify the context for usage of the information through referring to the external structure rather than their internal. In order to provide further salience to information, the aesthetics of the structure should reinforce the context and meaning of the information.

This way, the aesthetics immediately infer a context and mode of usage inherent in the structure of the information, whereby each piece/topic of information gains a strong element of external structure. A typical way to accomplish this will be to employ various modes of presentation to different types of information, and avoid similar dialogue boxes or read-outs that present different information in a homogenous fashion where the user is relied upon for performing the structuring.

TODO: Investigate whether information or concepts describe the representations of rules, tokens and dynamics that make up game systems better.

Filed under: Cognitive theory, Field-dependence/independence, Game design, Gender-inclusive game design   |  Leave a Comment