digital v. analog

In any comparison between two contradicting terms, you have to start with definitions and context. And in this particular case, the definitions depend solely on the contexts: video game controllers and the design of architectural spaces. In each of these fields, humans manipulate a set of parameters, or programs, in order to affect a certain outcome. It is in how people manipulate these programs that we define 'digital' and 'analog'.

Specifically, with video game controllers, 'digital' refers to a simple switch, which is either in the on or off position. An 'analog' controller uses potentiometers to measure not only movements, but also intensity. The modern game controller has both buttons (digital) and joysticks (analog), which affords maximum control of the game environment

In creating architectural space, a 'digital' approach refers to a process driven by computers and parametric programs. The 'analog' approach, then, would be far more traditional; design through models and sketches.

It would seem that, depending on the context, the two terms have drastically different meanings. In the world of video game controllers, the analog device, the joystick or mouse, is the more complex, intuitive, and future-oriented. Whereas, in architecture, analog is used more often for representation now, and digital is the complex, future-oriented process. And this is true for most things; analog is the old style and digital is the new. Why are the definitions switched for game controllers? What does this have to do with architecture?

Uh...to be continued