Semiotic Foundations of HCI and UX Design - Cross-Cultural Human-Computer Interaction and User Experience Design - page 13

The paradigm sets the basic framework of interaction and communication by
putting different types of constraints on the system, from the physical constraints
of a specific device, semantic constraints of a software platform, to the constraints
of the cultural background of deployment (see also Norman (2002)). The paradigm
privileges, or hinders, different types of communication and interaction by the choice
of discourses. We can define discourse as “a method for distributing information
to prevent their entropy by nature” (Flusser, 2002, p. 15). Flusser describes various
types of discourses in human history, ranging from theatrical discourse, hierarchical or
pyramid discourse, scientific “tree” discourse, amphitheatrical discourse, democratic
circular discourses, and network dialogs. “A dialog is a method for synthesizing a
given information into new one” (Ibid., p. 22). In his view, HCI would be a combination
of scientifically and technologically designed amphitheatres supported by networks
of users (crowds), which change the previous way of communication (or our mind
program ), and shape a different societal structure (Ibid., p. 36).
In order to work within these paradigm shifts we should focus on the commu-
nication between users and the system, the ongoing narration. In HCI, a model of
interaction can be exploited from narrative analysis. As Hebert (2006) put it, “The
actantial model is a device that can theoretically be used to analyse any real or the-
matized action [ ... ].” Hebert goes on to present the basic elements of the actantial

model:

The actantial model, developed by Greimas, allows us to break an action down into six
facets, or actants: (1) The subject (for example, the Prince) is what wants or does not
want to be joined to (2) an object (the rescued Princess, for example). (3) The sender (for
example, the King) is what instigates the action, while the (4) receiver (for example, the
King, the Princess, the Prince) is what benefits from it. Lastly, (5) a helper (for example,
the magic sword, the horse, the Prince's courage) helps to accomplish the action, while
(6) an opponent (the witch, the dragon, the Prince's fatigue or a suspicion of terror)
hinders it.

While the actantial model could be fully used for example in game design, for
other tasks we should work with a simplified structure. Brandt, for instance, developed
(together with the notion of a semiotic interaction flow) a revised actantial model with
the following modifications:

(1) The subject controls the running of the program not only by starting and following it,
but also by feeding it with input; the processing flow is sensitive to the input in quite
a different way than, say, a water flow is senstive to modifications of its velocity: the
“chemics” of the flow itself is modified by the input it receives [ ... ] (it memorizes).
(2) The “chemical” transformations of introduce input can be stopped by a bifurcation
in the flow, until the user has been “asked” which way to proceed (it gives options).
(3) But first of all, it “takes” informational data , by an inherent tendency to constipation
and coagulation which breaks out intermittently and can only be cured by this specific
remedy (it makes requests).

(Brandt, 1993, pp. 134-5)

Brandt concludes, that “[t]he consequence of this semiotization of the flow (by the
three features mentioned: memory, options, and requests) is a thorough revision of
the actantial model ... ” (Brandt, 1993, p. 137).