"The accumulation of gadgets hides these meanings Those who use these devices do not understand them; those who invent them do not understand much else. That is why we may *not*, without great ambiguity, use technological abundance as the index of human quality and cultural progress." Wright Mills (1959)
"I realized that we can't have a single good term to describe what we do with digital media for a reason.
In the 1960s-1970s digital media pioneers like Alan Kay systematically simulated most existing mediums in a computer. Computers, and various computing devices which followed (such as "smart" phones)came to support reading, viewing, participating, playing, remixing, collaborating.. and also many new functions.
This is why 20th century term s- reader, viewer, participant, publisher, player, user - all apply."
Lev Manovich in 2011
"From the perspective of system developers, a utilitarian morality governs technology use. The good user is one who adopts the systems we design and uses them as we envisioned (Redmiles et al., 2005). Similarly, the bad or problematic user is the one who does not embrace the system or device. This creates a moral problem, a stain to be eradicated." https://www.ics.uci.edu/~djp3/classes/2012_01_INF134/papers/nonuse-ozchi.pdf
ok, I finally have a synthetic table of what I mean by "user proletarianization" https://networkcultures.org/entreprecariat/the-user-condition-03-user-proletarianization/
angry birds (action) vs flappy bird (behavior) for now in Italian, but soon to be translated and expanded
"Hence one has to ask what happens existentially when I press a key. What happens when I press a typewriter key, a piano key, a button on a television set or on a telephone. What happens when the President of the United States presses the red button or the photographer the camera button. I choose a key, I decide on a key. I decide on a particular letter of the alphabet in the case of a typewriter, on a particular note in the case of a piano, on a particular channel in the case of a television set, or on a particular telephone number. The President decides on a war, the photographer on a picture. Fingertips are organs of choice, of decision." Flusser
"Nearly three quarters of the world will use just their smartphones to access the internet by 2025" https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/24/smartphones-72percent-of-people-will-use-only-mobile-for-internet-by-2025.html
here's some thoughts on computer users and mobile first influence https://networkcultures.org/entreprecariat/mobile-first-world/
"[…] software relies on the assumption that there is something like a programmer and something like a user. This also presents a special set of problems, the most important of which is the status of the actor versus the acted-upon, and under which circumstances which is which" Galloway, The Interface Effect
Alan Kay to Steve Jobs re. the iPad: “Look Steve. You know, you’ve made something that is perfect for 2-year-olds and perfect for 92-year-olds. But everybody in-between learns to use tools.” https://www.fastcompany.com/40435064/what-alan-kay-thinks-about-the-iphone-and-technology-now
in a different timeline we all use the "knee brace" instead of the mouse https://www.dougengelbart.org/content/view/224/217/
on the concept of user
1) User. I can't provide a singular definition of this term, because the tensions between contrasting definitions provide fertile ground on the research. Alexander Galloway points out that one of the main software dichotomies is the user versus the programmer, the latter being the one who acts and the former being the one who's acted upon. According to Paul Dourish and Christine Satchell, the "user" is a discursive formation to articulate the relationship between humans and machines. For Olia Lialina, the concept of user is a way to highlight the system that mediates the interaction. Lev Manovich indicates that user is just a convenient generic term for who can be considered from time to time a player, a gamer, a musician, etc. Manovich's point is something I'm considering further. This variety of uses he suggest is predicated upon the conviction that the computer is, in Alan Kay's words, a metamedium. But, when the main personal computer becomes the smartphone, is that still the case?
here's some thoughts on movement and relocation on computers, blessed by @luxpris beautiful gif https://networkcultures.org/entreprecariat/on-movement-and-relocation/
knowledge as know-how
Knowledge is always a know-how. This know-how, which might be implicit, is first codified and then automated: a technique becomes a commodity. Example: online search. What search engines commodify is not the information itself but the information retrieval process. The PageRank algorithm codifies the social practice of linking. The list of results is the commodity that derives from such codification process.
terminological conundrum, help needed!
How to call that messy assemblage around computers made of popular devices, semi-standardized interface layouts of apps and websites, widespread functional expectations, daily online habits, prevailing sentiment towards technology?
- mainstream computing
- the anti-Stallman
- the Techium
- the generalist software-hardware continuum
- normie computerdom
- platform consensus
- hegemonic computing
How to call contemporary computer monoculture? Here's some ideas: https://networkcultures.org/entreprecariat/the-user-condition-06-the-ithing/
@entreprecariat Been thinking about this series of toots for a while now.
Linux and other FOSS oftens gets a bad rep for having shitty UX.
But a lot of the appeal of Linux for me is how it can break so completely with this monoculture/hegemony in UX and UI design.
personally it feels very empowering to rethink computer usage especially when it comes down to behaviour that is nothing but a habit.
My latest move was to rename the standard home folders away from "Documents, Downloads, Music, Pictures" To things that I actually do
"Development, Music, Publishing:
@cmos4040 i agree: shitting on linux/foss UX is very often driven by default soft power. But then, for instance, we are on Mastodon, and one might say that its interface comes from computer monoculture. How to deal with that?
@entreprecariat In the case of webdesign I really don't have an answer to that.
The default answer would be to operate from a position of power (Design, Development, improve your own)
But what mastodon has also taught us is that "Just fork it" often means "Just fuck off".
And so far in this thread the subject seems to be people who are not in the position of power, who can't fork it.
In that case for me personally the real beauty lies in misuse and disobedience.
Uploading movies disguised as pdfs, wrong browser window ratios, standard to high zoom levels.
I once had a student that had a browser plugin installed that gave her the ability to select a font and size that would be used in all webpages. Imagine everything in Impact 35px.
@entreprecariat You mean that it would render HTML according to the users settings?
Instead of having CSS dictate every minute detail of a site design?
That early history of browsers is very vague to me.
"Style sheets in browsers were not an entirely new idea. The separation of document structure from the document's layout had been a goal of HTML from its inception in 1990. Tim Berners-Lee wrote his NeXT browser/editor in such a way that he could determine the style with a simple style sheet. However, he didn't publish the syntax for the style sheets, considering it a matter for each browser to decide how to best display pages to its users."
Even though the same power structure is at play. Creator of software does or doesn't want users to have control.
I think it is very different from the current hegemony of the web or software interfaces in general.
The sheer scale of UX design through user statistics(A/B testing etc) plays an important role too.
We are an instance for discussions around cultural freedom, experimental, new media art, net and computational culture, and things like that.