One of the least discussed aspects of DMSP is semantic conflict. Everyone agrees on: “we want something immersive” No one agrees on what immersive means.
Language as Problem. Words like: immersive, interactive, narrative are dangerously vague. In our group: one member imagined theatre, another imagined game design, another imagined data visualization. We were using the same words to describe different worlds.
A useful example of how meaning is not fixed but negotiated can be seen in the interactive installation Tall Ships by Gary Hill. In this work, visitors walk through a dark corridor where projected human figures slowly approach them in response to their movement. While the system behaviour is technically consistent, the interpretation is not. Some viewers experience intimacy, others discomfort, and some even fear.
As critics have noted, the installation produces an “uncannily real exchange” that makes viewers aware of their own psychological state
This highlights a crucial issue in collaborative design:
even when the system is stable, meaning is not.
In our group, we assumed shared understanding when using terms like “immersive” or “interactive”. However, as with Tall Ships, interpretation is shaped by individual perception rather than shared definition. This suggests that meaning in design is not transmitted — it is constructed.
I would like to show our resolution Strategy to solve such questions. We introduced reference mapping. Each member brought: one artwork, one film, one interaction example. We compared them. This externalised assumptions.
In terms of my insight. I think meaning in collaborative design is negotiated, not given. Language is not neutral. It is a design material.
