Stop! Hammer Time!

I had originally planned on writing about Haraway's "A Cyborg Manifesto," which Dena covered in the last round of theorist summaries, but then I decided to check out the other groups to see what other technologists had written. All were intriguing, but I decided to go with Manovich's article titled, "Friendly Alien: Object and Interface," which is the article Mike covered last time.

I selected this article because I am taking a human-computer interface class this semester and the content of the article seemed interesting and relevant. Besides, I figured I should learn more about what Manovich has to say since I still haven't finished the copy of The Language of New Media I checked out.

I didn't really read Mike's summary or comments that thoroughly at first because I didn't want his take on the article to slant my take on things. After reading Manovich's article, formulating my ideas, and finally reading Mike's post, I think I came away with something sufficiently distinct.

Irrelevant note: I don't know if this was a transcription error or what, but I'm going to call out the following misprint/error: "It will require lots of work and imagination before aesthetically satisfying solutions will be find." For shame.

Beyond my unqualified comments regarding editing or whatnot, this article was good, even if it is too short. This article feels more like a detailed set of notes than an article, but it poses some interesting information and insights into how people currently engage with computers/technology and how that may or should change. I'm not saying that the way the article is composed is bad or anything, in fact I like it, but it's pretty light on discussion of theory and contains more information about "cool stuff" in general. As a result, it is easy to focus on the objects rather than ideas if the reader does not have sufficient background knowledge. Onward -

Manovich jumps into talk about how the impression and interpretation of interfaces have evolved over the years. This idea is demonstrated through a discussion about artworks by Milos Manelas that show how we've gone from being wrapped in a tangle of cables and surrounded by beige boxes to using devices that seamlessly integrate into our clothing, living spaces, and environments in general. No longer are we doomed to a desk full of cables, we have integrated/convergent technology that can more deeply integrate into the lives we have or want to have. I kind of dispute this idea because a third of my desk is currently strewn with cables and wired devices, but maybe that's more a comment on my poor cable management skills. Anyhow, with increased ease of use and technological invisibility, computing devices have gone from being these utilitarian fringe geek culture objects to fetishized objects of desire, status, and style.

The specific example Manovich uses involves an apparently upper-scale consumer electronics store in Paris that has made these high-fashion pieces of tech the center piece of their stores and business. They aren't just there to show off what they can do, but how they can enhance one's style. He then discusses how this is good because it shows an increasing comfort with this inanimate Other (or alien as Manovich puts it), but it is bad because there's no reason, real integration, or benefit connected to slapping a pretty pattern on a portable gaming system or BeDazzling a cell phone. This type of enhancement is detrimental because it creates an incongruity or "discontinuity" that is distracting and takes the user and others out of the experience the device is offering. After explaining this odd situation of people trying to shoe horn technology into traditional aesthetic frameworks, Lev talks about deeper integration of form and interface/experience. In my mind this was starting to sound like form follows function, but that idea is quickly refuted in the article ("This does not mean that from now on 'form follows interface.'") and replaced by the idea of mutual accommodation. Neither side of the interface/form coin gets preference; they both work in tandem to create a sensible user experience. In his closing remarks, Manovich notes that we're still at an early hybrid state where there seems to be a desire to smash art and science together without enough concern with how one impacts the other. We currently operate these "friendly alien" interfaces that we cope with, but they are not ideal or unified. However, progress is being made in bringing rather low-tech common/natural objects together with high-tech computing and interfaces. He points to the example of smart objects, which are seemingly normal devices that invisibly hold and integrate advanced experiences. Although he doesn't mention this in his article, a quasi-smart object can be seen in some implementations of Microsoft's Surface technology. There is still some disconnect between the form and interface, so I am reluctant to call it a "smart object," but it's a tangible example.

As I noted above, I think the cool things Manovich noted in this article are secondary to the ideas of integration, convergence, and shifting relationships to technology. If we, as a society, really want to be able to use computers as tools to do more work we have to get a point where it is as easy to use as a hammer. I'm being a little too simplistic, but I think the comparison stands. Whether it is through culture norms or some other innate understanding, you can give a child a hammer or better yet a hammer-like toy and within moments they understand that interface and form. There is an immediate connection with a tool that has many uses ranging from killing foes to building homes. The combination of simplicity and applicability has made the hammer a lasting and seemingly indispensable tool throughout history.

Having systems that look nice and require tons of training or don't make sense in a given context does not lead to ubiquitous use, just a larger niche. I, and I imagine many others, argue that without an ultra inclusive user base that has a very high level of fluency with the interfaces, human progress and invention will start to stagnate. I'm sure some idea would eventually emerge to overcome this compartmentalization of technology and continue the process of cultural evolution, but why not make computing more accessible and useful to everyone instead of the relatively elite group of the wealthy and/or educated. Accommodating both ends of the form and interface spectrum while also accommodating the integration of high technology will lead to fundamental and surprising changes in cultures and societies.

Manovich, Lev. "Friendly Alien: Object and Interface." Manovich.net,
    2006. Web. http://www.manovich.net/DOCS/friendly_alien.doc. 
    February 18, 2010.