Commit 129199ca authored by colmoneill's avatar colmoneill
Browse files

splitting and re-categorising the intro/foreword/abstract

parent 73deef46
Title: Dissertation abstract
Date: 2017/01/01
# Abstract :
The move away from manual crafts towards on-screen counterparts has been ongoing since the first generations of software, in the late 1940s. It is a regular phenomenon in this day and age. Computer and software technologies promise —potential— for accessibility, flexibility, scale and speed of innumerable tasks. Many types of software are available for ranges of jobs, from every day actions to very complex and specific professional needs. This study first presents an understanding of what *craft* means today, now that different professions —say electrical circuit designers and photo editors— use very similar utilities. We look at how the practices and cultures that stem from manual crafts have been affected by their transformations to work within an operating system. It becomes clear that some labours have improved, while others have only —at best— been accelerated by the morphing. Therefor this study puts forward that a confusion between efficiency and efficacy when transforming a craft into a computer program can put severe weight on the origins and traditions of that field, and ultimately make the tool feel hermetic. <!--(tentatively answering the question relative to why it is important that tools and practice transfer culture and knowledge)--> This observation drives the inquiry toward the user and the (re-)learning —curve. What is the users position in the new scheme of actions that is software? Is s/he supposed to know all of the reasoning's and practices or is one to accept that *this is the order of things* without any context? Then, we note that the workplace has also been shifted, first out of physical tools, onto personal computers, and now again onto ‘the cloud’. What is the reasoning behind this third step? Is it necessary? Who is this helping, and what extra barriers does it place between practice and field knowledge? Finally, this study posits that a few re-considerations, of the user and the way s/he is talked to by the software —and it's makers—, could be a very simple but important change towards a broader understanding of what is happening and why, with huge benefits for all involved.
A [foreword]( and a [formal introduction]( to this dissertation exist, but are not included in the academic longform for word count reasons. Accessible via sentence linktext.
......@@ -16,13 +16,6 @@ I am working this dissertation with one central research question: **Why must st
For all this I can only speak from my perspective, from my experiences, and from research. My position is better detailed in this text: [‘Position statement’](/position-statement.html). I will speak about what technologies can do and has done for craft, and work my way towards the people the technologies were designed for, and the space between how they were expected to use, and what they had to learn. Then we will get back to the language that is left in the two faced machines that are software program interfaces, and how I think they can be made better, in very simple ways.
# Table of contents:
## [Abstract](/dissertation-introduction.html)
## [Introduction](/dissertation-introduction.html)
## [Chapter 1 : defining ‘craft’](/chapter-1-defining-craft.html)
## [Chapter 2 : efficacy or efficiency](/chapter-2-efficacy-or-efficiency.html)
## [Chapter 3 : the user, the learning curve](/chapter-3-the-user-the-learning-curve.html)
## [Conclusions](/dissertation-conclusions.html)
# Introduction<small>(formal)</small>:
This text aims to inform and answer a research question about software, culture, and their current relation; **Why must static visual production software technologies transfer the knowledge and skills of the craft they virtualise?**
Markdown is supported
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment