For the past while, I had been playing a supporting role on a kiosk project. Although the information structure and interface were monotonous, while collaborating on related content I started to feel that something was different. The look and shape were the same, but there were properties that felt strangely unfamiliar. That became an occasion for me to look into Unity.
While observing the process of composing, implementing, and using UI with Unity and communicating with developers, I came to revisit and reflect on those different properties I had been sensing.
Then, suddenly, I recalled a book from last year, Designing the Metaverse - Realizing the Future Spaces XR Aims For, where the author talked about object-oriented UX, the mental object, and the AR object. What these terms meant - began to make sense to me a bit more practically. And only then could I think about why AR/VR providers? have been using the term metaverse so widely (almost like a marketing term, taking words that already existed and reusing them).
Recently websites and mobile applications provide GUIs as raw as possible, and content and services (products) as rich as possible. And whatever (interface) tool the user uses, and whether the consumed content consists of 3D characters or not, the final input/output is mediated by a screen ( 2D), and the 'screen elements exposed on that screen' begin the flow of the service through click (touch) actions. By contrast, each individual unit designed/composed/expressed in Unity has properties closer to objects (passive + active) or components (independent units) rather than mere elements (passive, dependent/coupled).
For instance, when a frontend (GUI) is implemented with frameworks like React/Flutter, 'action button — user action — result (state/page transition)' is implemented as a single set, whereas when a frontend (GUI) is implemented with the Unity framework, 'even without user participation, the action button itself contains state values'. It is very similar to objects/instances used in Java and the like. Personally, however, expressing it precisely in Korean, the feeling is closer to 'gaeche' (entity) rather than 'gaegche' (object). When expressed as an entity, the difference between web/app-based GUI and Unity-based GUI feels a little clearer. Rather than the concept of a button (switch, trigger, passive voice?) merely for transitioning pages or states or for requesting commands, it carries the active property of responding independently.
Gathering such thoughts, I ended up drawing the diagram. To add a little to it: in the universe, the properties that compose daily life are subject (the individual user) along with time, place and time, making 4D. And in the metaverse (which is, after all, universe-based), there are multiple 4Ds composed in 4D — i.e., 4Ds. Therefore, the concept of universe vs. metaverse can never hold. Rather, I think the key issue is how much of the universe-like elements the metaverse can encompass.
And the author writes that the object-oriented mindset is not only a definitive way to handle programming-related problems but also extends its meaning beyond programming, exerting profound influence on the realms of design and philosophy. The cognitive system of object-oriented programming retains traces of ancient thought such as Plato's theory of forms. Plato defines a form as the abstract depiction of an object in the real world — that is, a universal concept of essence. He says this way of thinking is very similar to the class-based nature of object-oriented programming, and
Cornel Hillmann introduces designer Sophia V. Prater, who created and is widely spreading object-oriented UX, and presents her explanation of object-oriented UX in a discussion themed around extended reality.
When designing digital environments using media such as screens, voice UI, and virtual reality, designers must know in detail and with clarity what objects will exist in that environment. Which objects will deliver value to the end user? What can the user do with this object? What characteristics will this object have? If we put forward design results without firmly answering these fundamental questions, we will not easily be able to answer the user's questions either. If users cannot easily understand the objects in the environment, the chances that they will understand the environment itself become lower as well. -Sophia V. Prater
And Sophia V. Prater proposes a methodology that classifies elements such as objects, relationships, attributes, and call-to-actions using the ORCA procedure. (ORCA stands for object discovery, relationship discovery, call-to-action discovery, and attribute discovery.)
And he introduces the steps for applying object-oriented UX to a UX design process like the one below:
1. Discover objects — From research data such as interviews with decision makers or users, directly extract nouns connected to the organization's goals or user stories and select them as objects.
2. Define objects — Detailed descriptions accumulate to become the core content that defines an object. Goals, attributes, and metadata also serve as the language defining the object.
3. Establish relationships among objects — Through thought experiments, check whether objects cross-reference each other, or whether one object can be embedded as a sub-object within another, and establish the relationships between objects.
4. Assign hierarchy to objects — Setting the priority and hierarchy of objects means removing complex elements based on importance. The goal is to derive core functions worthy of inclusion in a minimum viable product.
After introducing object-oriented UX and how to apply it, in the course of explaining 3D object design and user interaction, the AR object is introduced and its advantages are described. This part also struck me deeply.
Because the object appears in the environment where the user exists, the user feels a kind of ownership. The AR object instantly becomes part of the user's world and reacts to the user's actions or to changes in the environment. As a result, the user perceives the object as more personal and intimate, finds it easier to form a relationship with it, and is therefore more readily inclined to interact with it.
The perspective of viewing the AR object itself as an application is meaningful for UX designers in many ways. At the heart of the visual design of an AR object lies a spatial storytelling concept that encompasses 3D polygon design, texture design, and 3D animation.
While reading the above, as mentioned in my earlier post on Byung-Chul Han's The Disappearance of Things,
Soon the Unding (anti-thing) blocks the way of things and causes them to fade entirely. We do not live under the rule of violence but under the rule of information. The rule of information is disguised as freedom. Digitalization de-thingifies and de-embodies the world. It also erases memory. Instead of retracing memory, we store enormous amounts of data. In short, digital media replace the memory police.
While the negative limits of the existing web 2.0 are being overcome through the transition to 3.0, various factors are emerging, and the AR object the author speaks of, unlike previous digital items, possesses (or is being shaped to possess) various properties similar to those of objects in the real world.
While listening to the content about AR objects and object-oriented design, I jotted down the flow that came to mind, somewhat haphazardly. For each step's thumbnail — at first I went looking around free-image sites, but ended up making them with Midjourney, one of the generative AI sites, and applied them.
