_Three-dimensional meaning_
Cyberspace will be scattered with objects and entities of different types.
Some of them are meant to carry meaning, as a 'message' or sign from author
to visitor . E.g. 3d postbox might signify =8A mail!
Other objects or compositions of objects might be meaningful to the visitor
without being consciously put there as a sign by the author, just like
architecture might be analysed and found to carry meaning never intended by
the architect. We will always read and sense through our own filters,
living in our own Personal Realities, more or less similar to other
peoples. This might be an argument for ambiguity and complexity in certain
worlds/scenes/etc. to allow for individual interpretation and experience.
When a object or composition of objects carries meaning, this meaning is
either iconographic or coded. Iconographic as in the postbox example, where
the object resembles something 'real' closely, making a strong allegory.
Coded when the object itself is not an direct reference to something, but
it's meaning is defined and learnt. E.g. the letters of the alphabet are
highly coded.
The problem for cyberspace architects (and other authors) is that there is
very little precedence to build a spatial vocabulary on. Of course you have
the real world architecture, which gives a lot of needed reference to how
to lead and orientate visitors, but there is always a lot of cyberspace
specific entities in need of representation. For instance, how does one
make a object to signify 'link' that is readily understood by most
visitors? You can't =8A yet; until a spatial language is formed this will be
impossible. This language will be formed by good examples spreading,
naturally shaping itself. Doubtful of the process? Look at the graphical
language of www-pages all over the world, slowly certain similarities are
evolving, like the use of coloured bullets , mutations of the <hr> line,
the use of [ something | ditto | ditto ], etc. It's not an extensive
language, both because it's not all that important, and because there are
few authoritative sources
The only thing to do now is to suggest shape-meaning relationships oneself,
perhaps they will catch on, perhaps you'll change it when something else
becomes norm.
-----------------------------------------
Torbjoern Caspersen casper@due.unit.no
http://www.stud.unit.no/~casper/
Student of Architecture
at the Norwegian faculty of technology, NTH, Trondheim.