Show more

<<Nguyen [creator of Flappy Bird] wanted to make games for people like himself: busy, harried, always on the move. “I pictured how people play,” he says, as he taps his iPhone and reaches his other hand in the air. “One hand holding the train strap.” He’d make a game for them.>> rollingstone.com/culture/cultu

Show thread

"There is no variation or evolution in gameplay throughout the game, as the pipes always have the same gap between them and there is no end to the running track, having only the flap and ding sounds and the rising score as rewards." again Flappy Bird

Show thread

"We could have games for anything. Games for attending classes, co-working, and making art. Games for work. Games for just hanging out. We're going to make these kinds of games. But at this point, it's time we stop thinking about them as games and start considering them part of a broader field: spatial interfaces." darkblueheaven.com/spatialinte

Show thread

"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)

Show thread

interface proletarization: disappearance of navigation, the user doesn't go anywhere, things come to them

Show thread

a good interface: one that, despite its complexity, you can understand so well that you can forget about it

Show thread

"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

lab.softwarestudies.com/2011/0

Show thread

if agency is the ability to interrupt automatized behavior, then rewiring the computer means acquiring agency in a computer system

Show thread

"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." ics.uci.edu/~djp3/classes/2012

Show thread

angry birds (action) vs flappy bird (behavior) for now in Italian, but soon to be translated and expanded

not.neroeditions.com/interfacc

Show thread

the most "active" user of an hegemonic technology is the one who decides not to use it

Show thread

"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

Show thread

"At root, [World of Warcraft] is not simply a fantasy landscape of dragons and epic weapons but a factory floor, an information-age sweatshop. custom tailored in every detail for cooperative ludic labor" Galloway, The Interface Effect, 44

Show thread

the most representative experience of being a user of a network computer nowadays is the mobile phone:
1) on average, more time is spent there than on laptop or desktop
2) most websites became fundamentally mobile-first in their design, or even mobile-only (think of Instagram)

Show thread

"[…] 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

Show thread

two ways to determine behavior and reduce agency:

1. calculate all the possible variables

2. reduce the variables to the minimum

Show thread

agency as the extent of deautomatization available

Show thread

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.” fastcompany.com/40435064/what-

Show thread

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?

Show thread

"The computer is as inhuman as we make it" Ted Nelson

Show thread

behavioral wet dream: software that doesn't need explicit input. all input is deduced by rhythm and modulation. software responds only to eye focus and adapts accordingly

Show thread

apropos "IF THE BUTTON IS NOT SHAPED LIKE THE THOUGHT, THE THOUGHT WILL END UP SHAPED LIKE THE BUTTON" by Ted Nelson, ca va sans dire...

Show thread

"There is one game in town: a positivistic dominant of reductive, systemic efficiency and expediency". Galloway, The Interface Effect, 99

Show thread

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.

Show thread

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?

Some ideas:

- mainstream computing
- the anti-Stallman
- the Techium
- GAFAMondo
- the generalist software-hardware continuum
- normie computerdom
- platform consensus
- conveniencism
- hegemonic computing

Show thread

terminological conundrum, help needed! 

platform defaultism?

Show thread
Follow

terminological conundrum, help needed! 

probably the best allegorical rendition of what I mean

· · Web · 3 · 4 · 2

Something I should have added in the conclusions is that *monoculture is plural*: monoculture is not Mac but Mac vs PC, or more recently Apple vs Huawei. Monoculture is in the intersection of cultures that attempt hegemony. Do we see a clash of cultures in this video? Yes, but we also see a monoculture. The dichotomy *is* the monoculture.

youtube.com/watch?v=qfv6Ah_MVJ

Show thread

"The question today is not so much *can* the subaltern speak, for the new global networks of technicity have solved this problem with ruthless precision, but *where* and *how* the subaltern speaks, or indeed is *forced* to speak." Galloway, 128

Show thread

"The role of consumer or worker has a modern edge, but userships is even less defined—what is traded, and the cost of it, is hard to see" Joanne McNeil, Lurking, 8

Show thread

"People used to talk about the internet as a place. The information superhighway. A frontier. The internet was something to get on. Even the desktop metaphor was in turn clarifying, then confusing: it helped people understand how a personal computer organizes information, while it invited a user to think of the experience as three-dimensional and spatial. Now people talk about the internet as something to talk to; it is someone." Joanne McNeil, Lurking, 17

Show thread

On externalized knowledge/know how: "When he was CEO, Eric Schmidt called multiple search results a 'bug'. Google 'should be able to give you the right answer just once. We should know what you meant.' When a Youtube video ends and autoplay selects another, that's Google attempt at a 'right' answer." Joanne McNeil, Lurking, p. 36

Show thread

another expression for the monoculture: impersonal computing

Show thread

"[…] if the interfaces of the city itself address everyone as 'user', then perhaps one's status as a user is what really counts." Bratton, p. 10

Show thread

"Think about what this means in the context of say, a Mac, an iPhone, an iPad. They aren’t full-fledged users. They’re just television watchers of different kinds." Alan Kay

Show thread

some user-related Benjamin Bratton's quotes from *The Stack*:

"In practice, the User is not a type of creature but a category of agents; it is a position within a system without which it has no role or essential identity." p. 251

"[The User's position] never allows someone to enter into it fully formed; it also forms that person (or thing) into shape as it provides them tactics for shifting systems and their apparatuses." p. 252

" […] the User is both an initiator and an outcome …" p. 253

"We, the actual consumers, are the shadows of the personified simulations of ourselves" p. 255

Show thread

'But neural networks, and software in general, do not create new reality—they ingest data and reflect back a reality that is a regurgitation and reconfiguration of what they have already consumed. And this reality that these machines reflect back is slightly wrong. Recall the statistician’s aphorism “all models are wrong, but some are useful.” What happens when we rely on these models to produce new realities, and feed those slightly-wrong realities back into the machines again? What happens when we listen to Spotify’s Discover Weekly playlist week after week, “like” the posts that Facebook recommends to us, and scroll through TikTok after TikTok? I am guilty of all of these, and it would not be wrong to claim that my taste in music and sense of humor are mediated by this mutual recursion between the algorithms and the real world.' blog.jse.li/posts/software/

Show thread

one thing I really like of this essay is how it elegantly bridges single computers with networked ones: "And if the computer was a bicycle for the mind, then the plural form of computer, Internet, was a “new home of Mind.”

Show thread

more Bratton (p. 257) on The User:

"The more salient design problem seems less to design for *Users*, as if they were stable forms to be known and served, than to *design and redesign the User itself* in the image of whatever program might enroll it."

Show thread

here's an article from , since it's related to this thread. The idea: Angry Birds stands for action, decision while Flappy Bird stands for repetitive behaviour, automatism. An excerpt:

"Angry Birds is the constellation of links punctuating a Wikipedia entry or the landing page of The Guardian or The New York Times. It is Open Street Maps or Google Earth. It is Radio.garden. In short, it stands for any territory that allows a destination, right or wrong. It is a multidimensional (though monodirectional) game. The user-player is here a user-navigator.

Flappy Bird is the bottomless feed of Facebook or Twitter, the chain of Instagram stories, the automatic playlist of Youtube and Netflix. It is all that goes by itself and therefore paralyses the user, making their intervention accidental or superfluous. In the inexhaustible feed, scrolling fells like a mechanical, rudimentary activity, ready to be automated, like turning the crank of a phonograph. You don’t navigate a feed, at best you unfold it. With stories and playlists, instead, full automation is finally achieved."

npc.cafe/angry-birds-vs-flappy

Show thread

Some notes on Douglas Rushkoff re: techlash and net apology:

"Computers were the tools that would upscale humanity. But maybe humanity simply wasn’t developed enough to handle the abilities potentiated by digital technologies distributed so widely and rapidly. At least not the sector of humanity that ended up being responsible for developing this stuff." [weird take imo to see human in need of update to work with tech: belief in competence rather than community]

"No matter our current perceptions of our lowly place in the order of things, we are not still in the land of passive television consumption and limited knowledge, taking actions that somehow recede into the past and fade away. No matter how stupid and powerless we have been led to think of ourselves, we have at our fingertips — in our pockets, even — access to the near-totality of human knowledge and capacity." some hope]

"But looking back, I’m thinking the answer wouldn’t have been to talk less about the power and potential of the net, but more." [net maximalism]

medium.com/team-human/was-huma

Show thread

on doomscrolling:

"Whether you’re scrolling through your social media site of choice, such as Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, or Instagram, or simply engaging with all the bad news on your favorite news source’s website for long periods of time, doomscrolling isn’t platform specific. And its roots extend back past the internet to the rise of the 24-hour cable news cycles, where it first became possible to gorge on depressing news on an endless loop.

After being first mentioned on Twitter in 2018, the term doomscrolling has become an increasingly popular way to describe the obsessive perusal of social media or news that for many has been sparked by the fear and anxiety around the coronavirus. The word’s close cousin, “doom surfing,” dates back to the late 2000s, when it was used in reference to the game Dino Run (the term described the act of running next to the game’s “Wall of Doom”). In many ways, the concept of doomscrolling—which more specifically refers to scrolling on your phone—has become the word of the moment, at least according to Merriam-Webster, which featured both terms on its Words We’re Watching blog at the end of April."

fastcompany.com/90514867/dooms

Show thread
Show more

terminological conundrum, help needed! 

@entreprecariat I was following you until that last one. I'm not seeing that "normie-ness" in there but a future vision. I would like a word for normie-UX too. I've been using "monoculture" without the substantiation it needs.

terminological conundrum, help needed! 

@air_pump yeah, not a fan of the word normie anyway. One point is that part of the present monoculture (good term indeed) is the future vision. For instance, one might suspect that the no-keyboard, touchscreen only telos is already inscribed in much of today's mainstream interface culture. In this we see also the software-hardware continuum aspect. Device being used shaping on screen presentation. I guess i need to put together all this in a blogpost. Thanks btw!

terminological conundrum, help needed! 

@entreprecariat my pleasure. I think you really are on to something which I got a sense for in your recent 'infinite scroll' piece. Agreed that the future vision is folded onto the present and informs it. To me the Zuck image is potent no doubt, iconic even, but it's in the realm of this Wall-e classic while I'm thinking about /r/oldpeoplefacebook. Same thing different focus I guess.

terminological conundrum, help needed! 

@air_pump wow this pic. I have a little discomfort coming for the fact that the infinite scroll/factory analogy or wall-e or computer as tv are quite cheesy, but the more I think of them, the more I find them convincing!

terminological conundrum, help needed! 

@entreprecariat they are! for me your infinite scroll resonated because it gets beyond that cheese (or maybe I read that into it) in a way that the Zuck pic doesn't allow. I'm thinking along the lines of "we are all constantly looking-at/filling-out spreadsheets" via various UI/UX. which may be another variety of cheese :) 🧀

@ashley oh thanks so much! I'm truly happy to hear :)

@rra read first chapter: well written, easy to read, very much "personal", maybe a bit nostalgic for now? I'll be able to tell you more soon.

@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.

@cmos4040 if om correct the browser plugin works as the browser itself was meant to function

@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.

@entreprecariat I did some looking about for it.
w3.org/Style/CSS20/history.htm (w3 consortium 20 years of CSS celebration)

"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.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
post.lurk.org

Welcome to post.lurk.org, an instance for discussions around cultural freedom, experimental, new media art, net and computational culture, and things like that.