Even though not using the RiTa library I like your idea of making a sort of oldschool tale-text thingie, and I began wondering how this could maybe work with more input and interactivity while emphasizing on the same things that you mention about 'visible materiality' and 'non-visible materiality' that is behind the text. It sure reminds me much about a videogame, although lack of graphics makes for a solid difference. But videogames in many ways unfold a path in which the player make choices. Even though visuals and graphics give hints of, or feed-forward in some sense, the player cannot always rest himself sure to what will come from his choices.
Again in order to emphasize on the notion of visual materiality shown to the user and the non-visual materiality in the machine, maybe games could play with 'opposite directions', ex.: Giving the opposite output of a logic and rational decision etc., maybe change the environments and physics to act with a new set of logics for the user to explore? In the same way one could play with text that rests on a different set of logics for the user to explore new meanings in a world that is strictly text based.
Moving to your concerns on this materiality differentiation. On a bigger scale this 'forced' narrative to me is something that the article for week 10 by Søren Pold took in question. For example Google with its AdWords is a way to narrate users through visuals (Ads) that are detailed to the particular individual, through the data of searches that has been gathered over time. We do not really see what happens behind the scenes but we get an output that is related to it. That always makes me think when searching Google what other people might have got up, because I'm sure I can't be seeing the whole thing. If I were to see and get some transparency on this data, maybe I would get a better understanding of the results that I get from Google and the Ads that Google feeds me, but I could never be sure that what I see is what is really the materiality related to the visual materiality, not knowing (and probably unable to read) the code that constitutes what Googles machinery is doing.
Heyo!
Even though not using the RiTa library I like your idea of making a sort of oldschool tale-text thingie, and I began wondering how this could maybe work with more input and interactivity while emphasizing on the same things that you mention about 'visible materiality' and 'non-visible materiality' that is behind the text. It sure reminds me much about a videogame, although lack of graphics makes for a solid difference. But videogames in many ways unfold a path in which the player make choices. Even though visuals and graphics give hints of, or feed-forward in some sense, the player cannot always rest himself sure to what will come from his choices.
Again in order to emphasize on the notion of visual materiality shown to the user and the non-visual materiality in the machine, maybe games could play with 'opposite directions', ex.: Giving the opposite output of a logic and rational decision etc., maybe change the environments and physics to act with a new set of logics for the user to explore? In the same way one could play with text that rests on a different set of logics for the user to explore new meanings in a world that is strictly text based.
Moving to your concerns on this materiality differentiation. On a bigger scale this 'forced' narrative to me is something that the article for week 10 by Søren Pold took in question. For example Google with its AdWords is a way to narrate users through visuals (Ads) that are detailed to the particular individual, through the data of searches that has been gathered over time. We do not really see what happens behind the scenes but we get an output that is related to it. That always makes me think when searching Google what other people might have got up, because I'm sure I can't be seeing the whole thing. If I were to see and get some transparency on this data, maybe I would get a better understanding of the results that I get from Google and the Ads that Google feeds me, but I could never be sure that what I see is what is really the materiality related to the visual materiality, not knowing (and probably unable to read) the code that constitutes what Googles machinery is doing.