I've been working on some things I'm tentatively calling Tiny Treats. They're friendly interactive web pages with very small code (HTML+Javascript+CSS), usually the code fits on a few lines. My goal is to make something cool and fun and beautiful, using the smallest number of characters as possible.
Here's an example:
<script>S=[];E=[];D=document;N=null;functionAnd here's the page it produces (currently it only works on Mac with Firefox or Safari): http://kano.net/in/treats/S
go(){for(i=0;i<104;i++){p=D.createElement("b");
s=p.style;s.position="absolute";if(i>99){
s.background="#00"+(i-99)*2;S.push(s);}else{
p.innerHTML="★";s.top=parseInt(i/10)+"0%";
s.left=(i%10)+"0%";s.fontSize="50";E.push(p)};
D.body.insertBefore(p,N)};D.onmousemove=function
(e){s=function(i,t,b,l,r,w,h){m=S[i];m.top=t;
m.bottom=b;m.left=l;m.right=r;m.width=w;m.height=h
};x=e.clientX;y=e.clientY;s(0,0,0,N,N,x,N);
s(1,0,N,0,0,N,y);s(2,0,0,N,0,x,N);s(3,N,0,0,0,N,y)}
}</script><body bgcolor=ff0000 text=ffff00
style=margin:0 onload=go()>
I've posted a bunch of them at http://kano.net/in/treats/. NOTE: they only currently work on Mac computers, and only in FF or Safari.
One of the feedbacks I'd like is whether I should go for making them way smaller (like the first one), and possibly less cool, or whether it would be worth it to make the code longer, to make them cooler and more complex. But I also want any feedbacks you can have.
13 comments:
Give me some more of these treats!
These are very fun and wonderful. FUNDERFUL!
I really like the ones with the snowmen.
I think the ones that are more complex are fun, but if it is more interesting to you to keep the code short, then it might be a cool constraint and force you to be more creative.
I don't know enough about code to give you more helpful feedback.
But I think they are sweet. Sweet tiny treats.
WOW! I just noticed the one on the bottom left with the flashing black and white. It is so trippy.
can you go into more detail on what you think would be more complex and cool?
personally i think there's plenty of simple elements to work with already–boundaries spatial relationships physical modelling time delays distortion random numbers–that you can play with while still keeping the code compact
i guess my question is–why should it matter to us–the audience–how long the code is?
I love the one with the blocks that get smaller and multiply when you click. I think keeping the code short is really important conceptually, and I really like that you display the code as we choose them. I think you should give yourself a strict limit of characters or whatever unit of code is relevant to measure them by.
I sort of think of them as html poems or like fluxus music scores, which would be really short and simple and even easy to memorize but would produce something really wild.
My question is, could I copy and paste the code on some public site to make it do something cool? Is there anything that I can do with the piece now that I am shown the "score"?
I like these a lot! I think seeing the code is totally essential (although I probably wouldn't put two and two together if I just wandered in here without explanation). I like the star of david / cross one the least, and the awesome red stars in blue boxes one the best. I would like to see them be even more minimal and less tricky. I like these because they are both CONCRETE and BEAUTIFUL. I think it is an excellent example of how conceptual art does not have to be dependent on dry, wordy explanation, but can be primarily visual.
I really appreciate all of your feedback. It sounds like the consensus is that minimal pieces with smaller code is the way to go. I like the idea of a character limit, it will keep the code from creeping up.
It also seems like I could make clearer the purpose of showing the code and keeping it small. I think it's awesome that you could type the code into a text file on any computer and it would do something cool. And the code is so small that you could probably figure it out somewhat and change it to make something new.
I'd like to make this possibility clearer to viewers. You can view the pages by copying and pasting the code into Notepad or TextEdit, but I think it would be hard to get people to understand that.
So, I was thinking of somehow allowing the viewer to change the code in real time, and watch how the page changes in response, kind of like Flashy Grid. Or maybe an "Edit" button in the corner that pops out a tab that lets you edit the code itself (also in real time).
Opinions?
What if the code was displayed at the same time - in a pop-up window or something (be creative), but the code was color coded so that i.e. red coding controlled certain red elements. There would have to be creative solutions to problems like - what about coding that describes movement? What about coding that concerns two elements, or lays the foundation of the page without being easily linked to a visual element?
Or perhaps if the values in the displayed codes had numerical sliders to control them, so you could still see the code, but there was this hands-on element. It'd be like an hourglass - probably lots of coding the interactive elements of the code, then the code is like the neck of the hourglass, then the page is large again because it is sensual, interactive, and has a multiplicity of posibilities.
I like how these have the possiblity of de-mystifying the internet. And I like how concrete they are. I think you should avoid too many symbols because that is not what this is about, but I like the stunted snowman with the fez because its kind of a stand-in for all content or symbols. You dont need any other symbols.
keith are you saying that if I put one of your treats into notepad, that I will see something crazy happen??? In notepad???
I think the interactive thing is kind of cool. I like the idea that it is crazy html code but even non-nerds cold possibly get a grip on it. If you want users to be able to edit the code and watch the results in real-time, maybe you could set the code up mad-lib style, in which the viewer couldn't delete or type a character anywhere but could input values in prescribed locations or choose from a finite range of possibilities, maybe that changes the idea. I don't know. I am also okay with the viewer not editing it, but maybe that's the awesome thing, I dunno.
Users also interact with many of them without touching the code. (I know that you know that already.) By clicking or drag or moving the mouse things happen and that's cool. Like I said before, I like the raining rectangles. I think it would be kind of cool if the viewer could sculpt the image more. maybe like an interactive fractal bonsai tree. Do you know what I mean? We can prune the image with mouse clicks here and there.
You know what might be a cool second project in the vein of "tiny treats"? You know how with Game Genie, you could take the codes they gave you and switch out certain letters to try to find new useful codes? That was fucking awesome. You'd find one where Mario never died, he just kept switching from big to small every time he got hit. Or one where there are no bad guys and no flag and you can't leave the first level. It would be really cool (though maybe not) compile a tiny treats game genie edition. An anthology of Game Genie codes for the NES which have little or no practical value, but make the game really weird or beautiful. God, I wish I had my Nintendo here. I want to do that so bad!
With that last idea you are starting to get pretty close to Corey Arcangel - one of Henry's favorites. I don't know if you know it - classic work. Check it out:
Super Mario Clouds.
Anyway - I just wanted to say that my last suggestions were how to make this project more complicated and all, and I actually think it would be better if it got simpler.
You can fuck that link. Here's his lecture at Cuhlumbia. It's worth watching I think - it starts out slow and confused, but the ideas are actually presented really clearly, and they are good ideas.
Cory Arcangel lecture
.
that's really cool. I can't read the whole lecture because I am at work and it's internet explorer being silly. But this dude actually messed with the cartridge itself, right? He didn't employ Game Genie technology, did he? I think it's really beautiful, but I also think there may be a place for my Anarchist's Game Genie Cook Book. In that it would be more like the recipe for an aesthetic experience that the viewer has to do hermself. Sort of like back in the day when rich people would by madrigal sheet music and then sing a fucking madrigal at a party.
Post a Comment