Jeff Ginger | Art Studio 444 | 02.06.07
Initial Impressions
I’m sure the rest of the class found this reading to be considerably more accessible… but I almost missed the theory and thought experiment basis of the other one (even if I didn’t agree with it!). I wasn’t entirely sure if the analogy between Gothic architecture and the internet was the best of those one might select, but I later came to appreciate the comparison when the author placed in the context of personal vs. community spheres. The author’s comment, “organized space implies not just a personal value system – as in the religious order of Gothic cathedrals – but also a type of community. This is true of architecture and urban planning, and it is also true of interface design.” (62), intrigues me. Our choices in metaphor and simulated interface environment make statements about our own values – both that of society as well as the individual designer. This appeals to my social justice side – given that we have a certain population and type of person who generally constitute the makers of interface in computers and on the web – what happens if we introduce and include other excluded individuals and groups to this process? Are our interfaces value-laden? Could inequality be perpetuated on the web in the form of the interfaces we employ?
Discrimination in Interface
Obviously agism plays a role in this inequity – the young have keen vision and access and understand information in considerably different ways than the old. The way we construct our interfaces is undoubtedly dominated by the young. We also have websites designed largely around the educated and the rich – most internet users are of higher class (and can afford to buy things) and have been afforded better education. Oddly enough the web still finds itself scattered with rather ignorant and lazy individuals who don’t embody or realize this intelligence and education. I’ve long considered conducting a graduate research project on the racism, sexism, and homophobia present on large gaming networks like Battle.NET. Given a veil to hide behind and an unlimited opportunity for continual definition and redefinition of identity intergroup conflicts and discrimination finds itself unleashed. Despite being able to play a game with someone half way around the world it doesn’t mean you can better learn to understand them. After taking a class on web accessibility I’ve also found that we design our interfaces and systems to be completely unusable by people with disabilities such as vision or hearing. Indeed, Flash isn’t something a differently-abled person can easily use.
Metaphor and Spatial Interface
I enjoy the fact that this article argues for the necessity for metaphor – it more ponders the form new interfaces might take on as we become further removed from the original command line. I never really placed a lot of thought into the genius behind the concept of the desktop and folder interface – learning it as a child I never really had to employ the metaphor to understand it – I just kind of absorbed it – which is why I think computers are so naturally intuitive to me. That being said I have been significantly trained – the second I switch to a Mac I become 50% slower and find myself frustrated with the interface not matching the model that my muscular memory is so in tune to.
The paper becomes rather quickly dated when one gets to the section about three dimensional interface and spatial relations. Programs like Adobe Atmosphere have taken this notion in different directions, and other applications, like SphereXP have attempted to reform the desktop interface around a totally three-dimensional model. The author regards third person shooters as the first three dimensional environment beyond the desktop of significant nature – now we see thousands upon thousands of people work in cooperation or opposition in a multitude of massively multiplayer games. These interfaces and 3D interaction environments take on many genres – from cooperation to development and evolution to strategy to on-going interactive narratives. Indeed one of the biggest uses of World of WarCraft and other MMO’s is for social networking. Which leads to my next statement…
Web 2.0
The article seemed to be pondering the next generation in interface design and use – many experts argue it’s here. The seamless bond between applications and internet/networking for use of a service is what most deem to be Web 2.0. Instant examples come to mind – iTunes, Facebook, Wikipedia – all of these are applications (music, social networking, dictionary) that benefit massively from their connection to the network of individuals using them. All of them benefit from network effects (the more users, the more valuable they are), and stand to represent the ‘new’ computer interface as we know it today. Interfaces aren’t just about accessing your computer anymore – they’re about the computer being a nexus to the group collective! The internet was just the beginning of this…
Web 3.0
Some theorists argue that the next generation will be the power of the collective conscious present in the form of the internet. As more and more people become a part of the web we find more and more accurate pictures representing the world. Even the concept of the endless index that is Google is one of overwhelming power – we can predict social phenomena and understand social movements, organizations, and agency all from the view of the web – a rather universal view of things – largely agnostic to the traditional components of power and control seen in governments, religions, and more.
The Immediate Future of Interface
Since I’ve blabbered too much I’m going to just keep these predictions simple:
- Dual Display. It’s already in use. Our generation is furiously multitasking obsessed – this is an absolutely natural evolution to complement our normal interface usage.
- Web 2.0. Computers are already considered synonymous with internet connection. Soon all applications will be too.
- 3D. Maybe in the long term something like Minority Report – but 3D interfaces are already in use in Linux and other applications.
- Mobility. Future interfaces will be designed with cell phone and alternative device (say Xbox or TV) users in mind - this means more modularity and new requirements for visual and spatial relations.
- Social Computing. I think more and more services and applications will be built around the group-think nature of the internet – drawing upon many minds – and giving an opportunity to assert your individuality in many more ways. Communities come in many forms, I see more of them surfacing over the internet in the future.
