Jeff Ginger | Art 444 | 01.25.07
Initial Impressions
So I began this week’s reading a little baffled by the opening – the author makes some assumptions in his premise that I would have liked to question. I wasn’t quite sure that an interface would “reflect the physical properties of the interactors” so much as mimic socially constructed and perceived physical activity and physical properties assigned by the designer. This first impression, however, was based on a much more constrained interpretation of interface – I soon realized that I needed to suspend my preconceptions and grasp interface more in the form of an abstraction – instead of employing the instinctive operational definition (interface is what we see it as in real life).
Assumptions and Bridges
Taking the author’s initial definition as truth, the speculative (undetermined & postulated) typology (systematic organization of elements into types on the basis of shared attributes) seems to actually call out to another concept I’m a little more familiar with in Science and Technology Studies (STS).
The work seems to be indicating a sort material-semiotic oriented analysis of relations – using interface as the front. Effectively mapping relations that are simultaneously material (connections between objects) and semiotic (connections between concepts), this epistemology framework is diminutive of the well known Actor Network Theory familiar to STS.
Actor Network Theory contains the rather controversial assumptions about the agency of non-human and the representation of collectives as individual units. The author’s example of the prisoner control interface fits perfectly with this ideological framework.
Assaults and Criticism
I did find a point of contention with the author’s understanding of metaphor in interface. He has a point – interfaces have the potential of becoming so abstracted that they no longer resemble the physical real-world properties that would normally enact them – for instance the way a first person shooter is controlled (w for forward, space for jump, a mouse that controls where you head looks – none of that is intuitive), but there are plenty of progressive and continually dynamic interfaces that present permutations of metaphors we encounter in our lives. Heck the Nintendo Wii will do incredibly well just because of its use of metaphor in game interface and design! Take the drag and drop concept – both brutally helpful as well as intuitive – and with a dual-display setup is considerably more efficient than any file/tree parsing or searching operation.
Solutions and Alternatives
I also disagree with his premise of control. An alternative theory or proposal is that of Adaptive Engineering another Sociology concept actually researched by one of the professors here, Andy Pickering, in STS. Adaptive engineering presents a system not contingent on domination or control, and features an evolutionary temporal aspect. Adaptive Engineering operates under the premise of multiple actors who contribute to a creative or previously existent system (or, in this case, interface). These actors do not control or dominate the system, but instead introduce changes and observe how the system interacts. They receive feedback from the system and then ascertain a better method of introducing change for a symbiotic and beneficial relationship. Think of add adjustments to the flow of a river to redirect water supplies instead of building a giant dam and screwing up the entire eco system. In the case of interfaces, I think adaptive engineering in regards to metaphors is the better methodology when it comes to creating better interfaces. Instead of trying to dominate the user and constrain them to a less and less metaphorical interface, help to introduce changes with each new interface and see how the users react. By increasing the knowledge and education of the user as well as training them what to expect they improve –and at the same time their unintended or seemingly irrational interests and instincts then help to inform the interface designers of new ways to optimize their model. An additional step beyond this is the open source concept – where users are literally able to change the interface as they see fit – resulting in the sort of Wikipedia style truth – an aggregation of interests and perceptions creating the best fitted definition or model.
At root I think people need metaphors. In order to connect with and identify with interfaces they must be on some level intuitive and contextualized so that people may relate.
The Prisoner Scenario
The author’s model of interface here suggests that all actors in each tier are relatively equal within the network. It does not account for pre-existing power structures, but instead sees these structures as emerging from the actions of actors within the network. Beyond this while highly descriptive, his interface lens (method of viewing the situation) doesn’t solve the problem or enhance our understanding.
Sentience
The interface abstraction employing humans as components is plagued with issues of sentience – what makes us human can differentiate us from a conceptualized construct or interface comprised of the inanimate or non-sentient (machines, animals). I won’t expound on my definitions of sentience here.
Terms?
The author references the Double Consciousness, an idea in Sociology proposed by DuBois as well as Alientation, a concept first pioneered by Marx in ways I’ve never seen before. Neither development of the terms fits the oodles of material I’ve been exposed to about them. With a little footwork Marxist ideology alienation can easily apply to the bakers.
Wrapping…
I found more discrepancies in the work, but I imagine I’ve already over-run the requirements here with my less than organized bantering, I look forward to hearing explanations in class!
Questions
- How can we divorce the metaphor from interface if technology (application of science within a social or cultural context) is socially constructed?
- Are other approaches of analysis appropriate? Conflict, network analysis, collective conscience, an aggregation of individual perspectives?
- Is the proposed reductionist progressive interface outlook imply a deterministic one?
