Interface Critique- Beyond UX - FLORIAN HADLER, ALICE SOINÉ; DANIEL IRRGANG

Notes

The interface as an "historical artifact", a "space of power"

"An interface in a merely techno-logical perspective is a site where incoherent modes of communication are rendered coherent1and where signals are translated and combined,2a simple gateway between databases, code modules and other forms of machine based communication. An interface is also a site where techno-logical and human preconditions meet in structured moments of sense-making and interaction. Furthermore, an interface is a form of relation and at the same time a form of differentiation and distinction,4of transition and mediation5and of inclusion and exclusion. An inter-face therefore is not just a surface or a passive gateway or threshold, not only a mode or a site of interaction or communication, but a deeply histo-rical artifact: a structured set of codes, complex processes and protocols, engineered, developed and designed, a space of power where social, political, economic, aesthetic, philosophical and technological registrations are inscribed." p.2

The interface as human -machine boudary

"An interface constitutes the boudaries between human and machine, holding them apart by linking them together, drawing thin and preoffice counter in the 1930s from Susanne Jany in this volume on Hadler, Irrgang, „Instant Sensemaking, Immersion and Invisibility,“ See the article from Lasse Scherffig on cybernetic perspectives on the interface in this volume on; An idea that is obviously employed by actor-network-theory, and also discussed in the text by Max Bense on the automobile, in this volume on p. 112.liminary lines between them. The interface is validated by the user9–both become an ensemble, con-stantly renegotiating the intersec-tions between human, machine and environment. " P.3

What is interface critique

"Interface Critique is not interested in the enhancement of usability, in mere ergonomic questions of design and architecture and in the optimization of user orientation or user experience. Interface Critique does not require a generally accepted definition of the interface. On the contrary: The obscurity and fuzziness of the term interface promises theoretical productivity and fruitful frictions among all kinds of disciplines. In order to render these diverse and multifaceted aspects of the interface visible, we need to expand our focus and include aesthetics, economics, engineering, politics, history, philosophy, sociology, coding, architecture, art, design and many more. Interface Critique strives to expose the implicit agencies, conditions and contingencies of interfaces, applications and apparatuses. Interface Critique encourages comprehensive and transdisciplinary perspectives and promotes an understanding of the interface as a dynamic cultural phenomenonx. Interface Critique acknowledges that the discourse on interfaces is neither new nor groundbreaking and therefore intends to resurface old texts and discourses, either through translation, republication or initial publication if they haven’t been or are no longer available. And last but not least, Interface Critique actively seeks to expand these viewpoints beyond the western European framework and to include more female authors and contributors."

Interface in computer science

"In computer science, an interface is defined as the boundary or contact surface for human-computer interaction. The interface includes both sides of data exchange, via input devices such as keyboard and mouse as well as output devices such as the screen or loudspeaker." p.103

The screen for Lev Manovitch

"Common to all of these early examples of illusionary spaces are that they are media, where the ‘interface’ – for lack of a better word – only allows the representation of the output side of the communication. There is no interacting with these media in the sense of mutual adaption, nor any kind of input from the user’s side. That is why Lev Manovich uniformly uses the term “screen” for any “flat rectangular surface, existing in the space of our body and acting as a window into another space”24 (Manovich 1995/96), including anything from renaissance paintings to photography and film. Although he divides his archaeology of screens after the temporality of what they show,25 he points out that the relation of the body and the screen constantly remains that of an immobilised body in front of increasingly realistic images"