No History without Accessibility

"Path of Honor" (screenshot)

Review by Kerry Wall

In his article “An ‘Alternative to the Pen’? Perspectives for the Design of Historiographical Videogames”, which appeared in the September 2022 issue of the journal Games and Culture, game-studies scholar Julien A. Bazile explores the extent to which videogames can be used to present scholarly historical arguments. Bazile differentiates between what he calls “historical videogames” that are merely set in the past and “history games” that are either developed by or under the supervision of historians or are otherwise “designed with the purpose of making a historical argument.” (857) The article argues neither for nor against adopting this approach, instead summarizing potential benefits and drawbacks as well as identifying potential lessons from the development of the history game Path of Honor. 

Bazile contrasts the development process of a history game against that of a historical game, noting that historians have served as consultants to major game-development companies on historical games but that their contributions may only be reflected superficially in the final product. A historian’s role in a history videogame, however, is one of “historian-designer” or “historian-developer”; while not necessarily the final decision maker on all technical matters, the historian becomes more of a project leader. Bazile concludes by stating that whether videogames are a useful method of presenting an academic argument is left to the individual historian, but that if the idea of a history videogame becomes a catalyst for new possibilities within traditional delivery methods, he considers the idea a success. 

Bazile’s introduction states that the article does not advocate for replacing traditional delivery methods with videogames; he discusses possible issues with using games to advance academic arguments. His exploration of potential difficulties with peer reviews raises interesting questions about how such a process would unfold and whether a universal standard could be established. For example, he notes that playing the completed game may enable peer reviewers to assess the intended final experience but that such a process could be lengthy if a game has multiple win-and-loss states or if an otherwise qualified subject-matter expert is less familiar with videogame mechanics. Reviewing the raw code or source materials may provide a more rounded view of the argument and the search materials but fails to replicate the experience of playing the game, which is the intended end state for the user. This was a well-organized accounting of possible friction between this proposed delivery method and established academic standards. 

The article is at its most thought-provoking when he Bazile?? discusses the concept of “seamlessness,” noting “the hallmark of a good videogame design is its invisibility” (864). This can be difficult to reconcile with an academic argument, as the author's credentials and the research's suitability are factors in determining the study's strength. Bazile makes a convincing argument that a history video game cannot be as “immersive” as a historical (or other non-academic) videogame because such a game might be perceived as “unauthored” or indistinguishable from a game intended as fiction. While this observation is well taken, the article suffers in his resulting speculation about an established “aesthetic convention to express uncertainty, doubt, and nuance” (864). Such a system would help to fulfill academic needs by attempting to simulate nuance, but Bazile’s specific suggestion that such games make use of “word formatting (size, font, color, or transparency)” (866) to do this runs afoul of accepted accessibility practices. As users may have various forms of colour blindness, colour should not be used as the sole method of conveying information (Brown and Anderson 706). Players are now accustomed to increasing in-game text size as needed (Brown and Anderson 708), and such an accessibility feature may conflict with the text convention Bazile suggests. While his call for establishing visual convention is merited, the article would have benefitted from an acknowledgment that such a convention would need to be developed following the principles of accessible game design. 

“An ‘Alternative to the Pen’? Perspectives for the Design of Historiographical Videogames” achieves its goals of exposing the benefits and drawbacks of using video games as a conduit for academic arguments. Bazile's observations on the possible role of historian-developer and historian-designer may give academics much to consider when assessing how to present their research. His analysis of opportunities and challenges is generally even-handed and balanced. The lack of attention to videogame accessibility is an otherwise exciting exploration of this topic.   

Works Cited 

Bazile, Julien A. “An ‘Alternative to the Pen’? Perspectives for the Design of Historiographical Videogames.” Games and Culture, vol. 17, no. 6, 2022, pp. 855–870. 

Brown, Mark, and Sky LaRell Anderson. “Designing for Disability: Evaluating the State of Accessibility Design in Video Games.” Games and Culture, vol. 16, no. 6, 2020, pp. 702–718.

The Metaverse Malfunction: Zuckerberg’s Venture Into Something Nobody Asked For

Review by Guinevere MacLeod

The Metaverse, created by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg is a failed attempt to create a new digital space for virtual reality users to interact and access the internet. Although the foundations and details of the Metaverse have yet to be finessed and users should grant it ample time to find its footing, time that should be awarded to any up-and-coming innovation, it’s clear at this point that the new platform doesn’t possess the elements to contribute to any meaningful success with regard to the average user and social benefits. 

Mark Zuckerberg is launching the Metaverse, a new virtual reality technology and space that promises the benefits of holding many different identities. The book “Navigating the Metaverse: A Guide to Limitless Possibilities in a Web 3.0 World” by Cathy Hackl et al. provides insightful information on what the Metaverse is and how everyone can be involved in it. For a condensed definition, it is a cloud-based service, a limitless connection, an open social platform, and the entire internet in a headset. The problem is, or at least the problem for Zuckerberg, that nobody wants it. The current patterns and trends of technology, beyond a business standpoint, already prove that the Metaverse is destined to fail; socially, recreationally, and physically. There are many promising economic predictions made by business professionals and technology experts, such as Mark Van Rijmenam, who wrote the book “Step Into the Multiverse” in which he’s very optimistic about the possibilities. Still, there’s also global evidence presented by billions of people who are not partaking. According to Meta, the owner of Metaverse, there were 300,000 monthly users in February 2022 (Skepticism, Confusion, Frustration: Inside Mark Zuckerberg’s Metaverse Struggles), which is abysmal for its multibillion-dollar budget. 

Socially, the Metaverse has been advertised as a limitless social platform, a way for users with a headset to connect seamlessly in a virtual world containing personalized characters, settings, and aesthetics. The idea of people interacting with each other without ever leaving their living room may have sounded fantastic five years ago. Still, it sounds like a dystopian continuation of a nightmare that, collectively, most people would never like to revisit. The word ‘Zoom’ already incites deep loathing in the minds of so many people, and after years of living virtually, it’s clear that this way of connecting is very few people’s first choices. 

Physically, virtual reality headsets aren’t taking off the way they were predicted. They’re uncomfortable at best and nauseating and disorienting at worst (Digital marketing guru on the metaverse: "Meta will fail and Apple will be the winner."). The feeling of putting on a headset for the first time is exciting and full of wonderment. Still, after the thrill of new technology wears off, the medium of virtual reality doesn’t possess any enticing user experience elements that would cement it as a consistent enough mode of entertainment that would warrant the costs and upkeep of the Metaverse. 

Recreationally, it simply isn’t new. The Metaverse promises a grand digital landscape open to everyone. Still, it is hindered by not only the price and physicality of wearing of a headset but by the competition of metaverses that already exist for people who would be interested in this in the first place, which isn’t as many people as the Metaverse creators seem to think. Many people have already invested so many hours into other platforms such as Minecraft, Roblox, and Fortnite, the desire to try Zuckerberg’s new world isn’t there. 

Overall, the Metaverse, at this point, seems destined to fail. It is doomed by a strange combination: the good and established aspects already exist within other universes, and the new and innovative elements are generally unpleasant and unwanted. On paper, it is promising and advanced, but socially and recreationally, nobody cares.

AI-Generated Art and Ownership

"Portrait of Edmond de Belamy" created by French AI engineers and artists called Obvious

Review by Marcus Vine

Society is always looking to increase efficiency above all else. Nowadays, it is rare for an individual to hone their craft to perfection, and with every technological advancement, there are fewer masters. Art is no exception to this rule. However, we walk a thin line when trying to bring autonomy to a skill with such a human element. 

In the article, “Who Gets Credit for AI-Generated Art?” written by Ziv Epstein et al., the authors state that we dangerously begin anthropomorphizing artificial intelligence, which affects how we trust the AI, as well as how we hold individuals accountable as a result of something created with AI (3). Because of this, we often overlook what role the AI plays in creating the art, whether it is used as a tool or an agent, how the AI is trained on the works of others, and most importantly, who should be credited for the generated artwork. 

The authors start their article with a summary of the painting Edmond de Belamy, a piece that was created by AI and then sold at Christie's Art Auction for over $400,000 (1). This sparked a wave of discussion about who takes credit for art created by machines, and it was concluded by Epstein et al. that agency was ultimately determined by how the AI was described (7). However, due to the specificity of the chosen case, many variables that influence modern-day generative AI were not present. 

One of these critical variables is how the “input,” as defined by Fjeld and Kortz, is handled. Images are sourced from all over the internet to train these machine learning algorithms, where those images have original authors already. As of the time of writing this paper, copyright and intellectual property law have not caught up to the rapid advancement of generative AI. And so, in practice, art created by text-to-image generative AI is often sold under the guise of being owned by the “prompt-engineer,” the individual that writes the text prompt. This again leads us to more questions about ownership. If an artist were to generate an image and then touch it up in photoshop, should ownership be shared between the artist and the AI? Or would the artist then take full ownership of the piece? “Stealing like an artist” is not a novel concept, as any new piece of art can be viewed already as a collection of pieces and inspirations that are then manifested together by the artist, and not often are artists' inspirations credited with any form of ownership. 

As AI becomes more prominent in the art space, there have been many mixed feelings about its use in modern media. However, according to Arbiza Goenaga, there is currently changing artists’ relationship with technology (Arbiza Goenaga 55). He furthers this sentiment by stating: 

“As maintained by researchers Glenn W. Smith and Frederic Fol Leymarie we can now begin to think of the machine, not as the artist’s subject matter or medium, but as creator or co-creator. With the current technological development, and with GAN especially, we can confidently begin to speak comfortably of the machine as an artist.” (Arbiza Goenaga 55) 

Perhaps soon, generative AI involved in a creative process will need to be given proper credit. More pressing is whether AI is to be considered legally as an entity of its own being or a creation of an individual (Fjeld and Kortz). 

I believe that all art generated solely through generative AI and machine learning should be legally considered under creative commons and cannot be sold by the individual who generated it using AI as a tool. AI is good for artists. It allows us to push concepts further and faster than before, increasing the overall quality of the art. 

Works Cited 

Epstein, Ziv, et al. “Who Gets Credit for AI-Generated Art?” IScience, vol. 23, no. 9, 25 Sept. 2020,  

Fjeld, Jessica, and Mason Kortz. “A Legal Anatomy of AI-Generated Art: Part I.” Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, Jolt Digest, 21 Nov. 2017.  

 Arbiza Goenaga, Mikel. “A Critique of Contemporary Artificial Intelligence Art: Who Is Edmond De Belamy?” AusArt, vol. 8, no. 1, 2020, pp. 51–66. 

Who is the original creator in the AI Generated Artwork "Dream" by Wombo?

Review by Betina Borza

Artificial intelligence (AI) generated artwork has become increasingly popular over the past few years. However, the use of AI to create art raises a few questions that impact the art community. For instance, who is the original creator of the artwork? The user or the creator of the AI code? 

Dream by Wombo is an AI text-to-image generator that may use VEGAN-CLIP networks to create unique artworks (Lønvik 7; Crowson 2). Dream generates art based on two factors, a two-hundred-word limit prompt and a selected chosen style. Users can pick from 39 art styles to help the generator understand the desired outcome. Users also have the ability to upload their art or images and have Dream alter them (Wombo.ai). 

Who is the original creator of the AI artwork and copyright holder? By default every person that creates something artistic, and can prove they made it is automatically the copyright holder (Office). However, when a person only wrote a few lines of text and an AI did the rest, who is the original creator? 

According to Dream, they consider the users the creator of the art. Their website and app publish the users, and they state “created by…” (Wombo.ai) underneath artworks, as well as providing the prompt and style the users chose. This unveils another question if I were to copy someone's prompt and their style, and the AI created a similar generation, would I be copying the user's work since it is not my original idea? 

For instance, user “dragonfaether” (Wombo.ai) on Dream has a very distinct style of artwork he generates. However, a simple copy and paste of one of his prompts and the AI can generate an artwork that fits in with his creations. Therefore, if the only aspect of Dream that is completely original, which is the text, is wholly copied, who is the originator? The person who came up with the concept or the person who copied and pasted the text? This demonstrated the blurred line that comes along with AI-generated artworks, clearly marking distinct points in when an artwork or idea is copied is crucial to the future of AI art. 

The originator or the artwork is neither the user who writes a prompt nor the people who wrote the code, but the art belongs to the AI. For instance, if someone were to write a prompt to draw an elephant, and a real-life person was to draw that elephant, who does the drawing of the elephant belong? The artist who drew the elephant. Furthermore, an AI robot named Sophia is considered a citizen of Saudi Arabia. Therefore, it is not far-fetched to consider an AI the creator of original art (Retto, 2017). 

The future of AI is unknown. Therefore, the future of AI art could lead to several different outcomes. A potential outcome is that every art supposedly created by users of Dream to date could become the property of the Dream AI. 

Works Cited: 

Crowson, Katherine, et al. "Vegan-clip: Open domain image generation and editing with natural language guidance." arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.08583 2 (2022). 

Lønvik, André Tørlen. "An overview of Artificial Intelligence; Application, user experience and ethical problems." (2021). 

Office, Canadian Intellectual Property. “Government of Canada.” Canadian Intellectual Property Office, / Gouvernement du Canada, 15 Sept. 2022. 

Retto, Jesús. "Sophia, first citizen robot of the world." ResearchGate, URL: https://www. researchgate. net (2017). 

Wombo.ai (n.d.) dream. Available at: https://app.wombo.art/ 

The ease of use and the seamless collaboration of web-based UI tools

Review by Sarosh Chopra

UI design tools have increasingly become more sophisticated over the last decade. The most prominent software for UI design, Sketch, was released in 2010. It became popular as it focused primarily on UI design and was easy to use. Adobe inc. and Figma inc. decided to release their UI design software products in 2016 called Adobe Xd and Figma. Similar to Sketch, Adobe Xd also needs to be installed on a computer for users to get access. However, Figma inc. decided to release its software as an online service, eliminating the need to install software on a computer. 

 The work on Figma began in 2012 by Dylan Field and Evan Wallace, who were studying computer science at Brown College then. Before finalizing Figma as an online UI design tool, the co-founders experimented with ideas such as creating software for drones and a meme generator.

According to the co-founders, the goal behind creating Figma was to provide a free, simple creative tool accessible on an internet browser. In June 2013, Figma raised $3.8 million in seed funding. In December 2015, the company raised $14 million in Series A funding. Figma was officially released to the public on September 27, 2016. 

As a professional UX designer, I have used all the UI software available in the past few years, including Adobe Xd, Axure RP, Sketch, and Figma. I have to say that Figma is the best UI design tool in terms of User Experience. 

The unique selling point of Figma is that it is entirely cloud-based. It is accessible on any computer or tablet with an internet connection. The files created by users get saved on the cloud, eliminating the need to occupy the hard disk space of their devices, as well as creating an automatic backup of the files. Due to Figma being cloud-based, designers' collaboration is easier than ever. "Common design problems like file versioning and real-time collaboration aren’t an issue for Figma. Designers can work together, or make changes on their own, and those changes are reflected across the file in real-time with a complete revision history. To share something new, they can simply send over a link," states Nitin Naresh. The only drawback of Figma is that it requires an internet connection. 

However, currently, the internet has become ubiquitous. Figma has set a new standard for UI design tools and is a product made by designers for designers. It has gained immense popularity among creative professionals, with over 4 million users. On September 15, 2022, Adobe Inc. announced it had entered into a definitive merger agreement to acquire Figma for approximately $20 billion in cash and stock. The combination of Adobe and Figma will usher in a new era of collaborative creativity. 

Works Cited 

Dylan Field, "A new collaboration with Adobe" September 15, 2022 

Josh Constine, "23-Year-Old’s Design Collaboration Tool Figma Launches With $14M To Fight Adobe" December 3, 2015.

Josh Constine, "21-Year-Old Thiel Fellow Raises Three-Point-Eight Million Dollars For Figma" June 26, 2013.

Jordan Crook, "Figma gets $40 million Series C to put design tools in the cloud" Febuary 14, 2019.