Reading 2 - Mariah McCauslin

     "Brennan suggests that common ground is a jointly inhabited 'space' where meaning takes shape through the collaboration and successive approximations of the participants" (Laurel 4). Laurel brought up the notion of common ground early in the reading. This idea was hard for me to grasp. I have never thought of myself as having a shared interaction with my computer. Computers as Theater gave computers somewhat of a life-like quality. Brenda Laurel helped me envision the relationship between a computer and its user. There has to be clear communication coming from both sides. "Mistakes, unanticipated outcomes, and error messages are typical evidence of such a breakdown in communication, where the common ground becomes a sea of misunderstanding" (Laurel 4).

     Prior to reading Brenda Laurel's Computer as Theater, I would have never been able to see the similarities between theater and computers. According to Laurel, both theater and interface design 'deal with the representation of action' (Laurel 14). The figures that were shown definitely aided my understanding in the connection. If a computer was a theater, the virtual world would be the stage. The stage would be inhabited by agents and other elements. Behind the scenes, value only exists depending on what is produced on the stage. 
     Although I understood many of the similarities that computer and theater share, I also thought of the many differences. When you operate a computer, the computer's actions depend on your actions. An actor's dialogue, actions, etc. have no connection to the actions of the audience. I then thought that maybe I was thinking of this the wrong way. Do the actions behind the scenes have an effect on the people on stage? No. However, the actors are going off of their script, which in a sense developed back stage. It is much easier to read and understand the similarities, than to challenge the similarity.