Date
December 2019
Type
PublicationContexte
Version enriched with a chapter of the essay Design and digital humanities (2017), translation from French by Jesse Cohn], Berlin, Interface Critique, dir. Florian Hadler, Daniel Irrgang, Alice Soiné, no 2, “Navigating the Human”
Résumé
Télécharger l’article en PDF Voir l’article [En ligne « Human, All Too Human is the monument to a crisis. It calls itself a book for free spirits: almost every sentence is the manifestation of a victory – I used it to liberate myself from things that did not belong to my nature. Idealism is one of them: the title says “where you see ideal things, I see – human, oh, only all too human!”… I know people better. The term “free spirit” does not want to be understood in any other way: a spirit that has become free, that has taken hold of itself again. — Friedrich Nietzsche 1 Friedrich Nietzsche, Ecce Homo [1888], in: The Anti-Christ, Ecce Homo, Twilight of the Idols: And Other Writings, ed. Aaron Ridley and Judith Norman (Cambridge, England 2005), pp. 115–116. In this seemingly autobiographical fragment, Nietzsche refers back to his book Human, All Too Human [1876-1878]. In current discussions of “interface design,” catchphrases such as “user-centered design,” “the user experience,” and by extension, “experience design” might not, at first glance, seem to draw scrutiny. After all, isn’t the purpose of design to create ‘useful’ things based on the users’ needs, ‘centered’ on them and on the improvement of their ‘experience’? However, if one looks at these concepts more closely, one might wonder what these methods engage as conceptions of design, and more broadly as an understanding of human relations and human-machine relations. Indeed, it is not unproblematic to presuppose that “we” are users first and foremost, i.e. beings solely concerned with relations of utility. What are we to think, then, of terms such as “user-centered design (UCD) 2 Shawn Lawton Henry, Justin Thorp, Notes on User Centered Design Process (UCD). W3C.org (March 2004), http://www.w3.org/WAI/redesign/ucd, access: July, 1, 10:00pm., ” “human-centered design (HCD) 3 Human-Centered Design Toolkit. Ideo (2009), http://www.ideo.com/work/human-centered-design-toolkit, access: July, 1, 10:00pm.,” “activity-centered design (ACD)4 See Geraldine Gay, Helene Hembrooke, Activity-Centered Design. An Ecological Approach to Designing Smart Tools and Usable Systems (Cambridge, MA 2004).,” or “people-centered design (PCD)5 Hugh Graham, People-Centered Design. hughgrahamcreative.com, http://hughgrahamcreative.com/people-centered-design, access: July, 1, 10:00pm.”? Why must design be “centered” on something? More broadly, aren’t there some aspects of human life that can’t be replaced by the “experiences” generated by “user-centered” design? In order to critique the engineering of design and the reduction of the designer’s task to normative and even quantitative methodologies, I propose, as a research method, to bring together an historical study of the concepts to be questioned with technical analyses and the related discourses surrounding them. More precisely, I could synthesize this text’s research method in the following way 6 Here, I borrow the useful summary provided by Alexandre Saint-Jevin in his review of the essay Design et humanités numérique s: Alexandre Saint-Jevin, Sur la trace de l’humain dans les « objets » de design. Non-Fiction (2018),: 1 . To analyze the concept determining the process by which design issues were constructed in order to draw out the underlying philosophical concepts. 2 . To retrace the genealogy of this concept, connecting the technical reality of the products of design with the discourses of all entities being at the origin of the project (originators, designers, contractors, communicators, marketers, etc.) regarding these products. 3 . To synthesize the history and the discourses of these entities concerning matters of design more broadly in order to draw out the philosophical issues entailed in them. 4 . To connect the philosophical issues revealed by the analysis of the discourses of the entities with those of the original concept to show how these come to condition and determine the technical reality. This is thus not a matter of constructing a model of design activity in the form of logical sequences (diagrams, schemata, timelines, etc): rather than trying to tell designers what they should do, this analysis is intended to provide them with critical tools allowing them to analyze, in their own process, what they have already made or are still working on. In order to open up possibilities for making interfaces other than the behavioral scripts of experiential design, I will begin my analysis by turning back to the history of the first graphic interfaces. How do the values embedded within these technological strata infuse and even limit our relations to technology? Xerox Star’s “conceptual model of the user” The expression “user interface” correlates temporally with the development of microcomputers at the end of the 1960s. In 1968, Douglas Engelbart presented the result of the research undertaken at Xerox PARC at the time of an event retrospectively called the “mother of all demos”, where were first showcased videoconferencing, teleconferencing, email, the hypertext navigation system, and the interface modeled on the “office metaphor” based on “windows,” “folders,” the “trash,” etc. Partially realized in the 1973 Xerox Alto 7 Only 1500 units were produced: 1000 for employees of Xerox and the remainder for universities and public institutions. computer, this first form of graphic user interface (GUI) was included in the 1981 Xerox Star. Moreover, the latter was accompanied by network access, email capabilities, a mouse, and a WYSIWIG (What You See Is What You Get) printing system precise enough to make what is seen on the screen coincide with a paper output. In order to specify the origin of the conceptual model used as a basis for a design explicitly asserting needs of “users,” it is important to reconsider the founding principles of the Xerox Star. In an article dating from 1982, five former employees of Xerox Corporation explain their comprehension of the human-machine relations, and more precisely their methodology of interface design: “We have learned from Star the importance of formulating the fundamental concepts (the user’s conceptual model) before software is written, rather than tacking on a user interface afterward. […] It was designed before the functionality of the system was fully decided. It was even designed before the computer hardware was built. We worked for two years before we wrote a single line of actual product software.” 8 David Canfield Smith, Charles Irby, Ralph Kimball, Bill Verplank, and Eric Harslem, Designing the Star User Interface. Byte 4 (1982), p. 246. Reprinted online: Contemporary readers, used to design being relegated to the end of a process, dependent on a multitude of external parameters, will certainly wonder at the attribution of such importance to design “before” the material specifications are even formulated. In the case of the Star, it was much more a question of introducing the market to “radically new concepts”9 Ibid.p. 242. than of seeking to apply an “order” issued from above. By dedicating a quantity of memory to the screen display, the originators of the Star were able to create a visual interface functioning in tandem with the mouse (also used on Xerox Alto), defined in the 1982 text as “a way to quickly point to items on the screen 10 Ibid. p. 246.” more effective than the cursors activated by the keyboard. It is particularly interesting to study how the Xerox teams developed a project methodology linked to what is today called “user-centered design.” The development of an interface poses many problems indeed: taking into account the variety of languages in which the users address their commands to the computer, the design of on-screen representations displaying the state of the system to the user, and other abstract problems that can affect the understanding of the system’s behavior. According to the Star teams, these problems are highly subjective, and can be solved only on a case-by-case basis. The method employed thus consisted in focusing on what should precede any design of a successful interface, namely “task analysis”: ” The current task description, with its breakdown of the information objects and methods presently employed, offers a starting point for the definition of a corresponding set of objects and methods to be provided by the computer system [including programs and peripherals]. The idea behind this phase of design is to build up a new task environment for the user, in which he can work to accomplish the same goals as before, surrounded now by a different set of objects, and employing new methods.11 Ibid.p. 248. “ For Xerox, the user is an entity centrally dedicated to carrying out tasks in order to achieve objectives. One finds here the common definition of an algorithm, namely, a set of instructions intended to accomplish a given action. In other words, isn’t this understanding of what a user is derived from the “program” (an algorithm written in machine language) as a model of thought? Isn’t it odd that, in order to improve human-machine relations, human beings are to be imagined on the model of the machines? In this sense, what one would call a “user” in the data-processing context would often be merely a logical reduction of human subjectivity, consequently able to hold a dialogue with “extra-human” programs 12 I borrow this expression from the exhibition Haunted By Algorithms, a research project directed by Jeff Guess and Gwenola Wagon, Paris, ENSAPC / YGREC, January 21, 2017 – March 5, 2017.. Just as some see design as a discipline capable of becoming a science 13 See Anthony Masure, Pour une recherche en design sans modèle, in: Design et humanités numériques, ed. Anthony Masure (Paris 2, here it is a matter of constructing “models of behavior” in order to improve the effectiveness of the “tasks.” The etymology of the French noun “tâche” (“task”) can be traced back to the Latin verb “taxare” (“to tax»), indicating “a determinate work that one is obliged to perform, together with a concept of ‘remuneration’ [or] moral duty 14 Alain Rey (dir.), Dictionnaire historique de la langue française, Paris, Le Robert, 2010. p. 9620–9621.”. The French verb “tâcher” (“to try to do”), in turn, expresses the idea of striving, sometimes accompanied by the idea of a degree of painful exertion in order to comply with the imperative to “try to do” something. If the user is a being whose objectives, to be realized, necessarily pass by a series of tasks to achieve, wouldn’t this make us “tâcherons” (“drudges”), i.e. “person[s] performing work on command [emphasis by the author/s] without much intelligence”? 15 Ibid.p. 248–249. In the case of the Xerox Star, nevertheless, things are more complicated. The fact of starting from a “user-model” comprised of a small set of design principles makes it possible to ensure an overall coherence, since “the user experience [acquired in] in one area… [can] apply in others 16 David Canfield Smith, Charles Irby, Ralph Kimball, Bill Verplank, and Eric Harslem, Designing the Star User Interface. Byte 4 (1982), p. 242: “The Star user interface adheres rigorously to a small set of design principles. These principles make the system seem familiar and friendly, simplify the human-machine interaction, […] and allow user experience in one area to apply in others.” Emphasis mine.,” thus reducing the cognitive load involved in the use of the computer system. Another aspect discussed in the article – connected with the concept of coherence – pertains to the concept of “familiarity” (the “Familiar User’s Conceptual Model”): “A user’s conceptual model is the set of concepts a person gradually acquires to explain the behavior of a system […] The first task for a system designer is to decide what model is preferable for users […]. This extremely important step is often neglected or done poorly. The [Xerox] Star designers devoted several work-years […] [to] evolving […] an appropriate model for an office information system: the metaphor of a physical office.”17 Ibid.p. 252. The Xerox Star interface was thus constructed on the basis of the users’ current universe, namely, the hierarchical model of the office. It was important to produce a “familiar” interface in order to reduce sources of friction, making the “user experience” seamless. Thus, users find in the machine their customary division, organization, and management of tasks. For example, the pile of paper messages on the physical desk of office-worker users is translated, in their computer, into a pictogram of an envelope indicating when a new email has been received. It is interesting to specify that the metaphorical model defined in advance of the actual development of the program de facto modifies the functions of this program: the design is not approached as a matter of mere presentation. Taking the example of the emails once again, typing a “send mail” command can thus be avoided by manipulating the icons. A last important aspect of the Star interface pertains to the personalization of the interface, as the movable icons make it possible to configure the work environment. Summarizing the overall principles of the Xerox Star, what is indicated here by the term “user” is in fact a succession of goal-directed “tasks” from which the designers construct a “conceptual model” as a basis for the developing of the computer system and ensuring its metaphorical coherence. By providing users with a “familiar” and “friendly” environment, the interface thus developed is intended to increase their productivity by developing “human-machine synergism.” However, the Xerox Star’s “friendly” interface reveals its limitations in certain functions where the office metaphor is inoperative: “One of the raisons d’être for Star is that physical objects do not provide people with enough power to manage the increasing complexity of the “information age.” For example, we can take advantage of the computer’s ability to search rapidly by providing a search function for its electronic file drawers, thus helping to solve the long-standing problem of lost files.” 18 Ibid.p. 282. The 1982 article concludes on an intriguing note, observing that it is difficult to choose between several models of interfaces while relying on stable (scientific) criteria: “User-interface design is still an art, not a science.” 19 Ibid. : « User-interface design is still an art, not a science. » Although the Xerox Star text ultimately pleads for the establishment of a “more rigorous process” for the development of interfaces, such an assertion must elicit the contemporary reader’s curiosity. The emergence of “rationalized” graphic operating systems In spite of the commercial failure of Xerox Star, these design methods will be a success, definitively changing our relations with electronic machines. A precursor of the research conducted to Xerox PARC, Jef Raskin’s thesis in computer science, Quick-Draw Graphic System, published in 1967 (i.e., 6 years before the Xerox Alto 20 At the beginning of the Seventies, the IBM Usability lab was solely concerned with ergonomics. The Psychology of Computer Programming was published by Gerald Marvin Weinberg in 1971, and the work of Stuart K. Card, Allen Newell and Thomas P. Moran was only made known to the general public after the publication of The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction in 1983.), argued for a data-processing environment in which the graphic interface would hold a dominant place. Such an idea was not at all self-evident at the end of the 1960s: “The most heretical statement I made […] was that my work was based on a “design and implementation philosophy which demanded generality and human usability over execution speed and efficiency.” This at a time when the main aim of computer science courses was to teach you to make programs run fast and use as little memory as possible.” 21 Dr. Bob, Articles from Jef Raskin about the history of the Macintosh. Dr Bob Tech Blog (2013), https://drbobtechblog.com/articles-from-jef-raskin-about-the-history-of-the-macintosh/, access: July, 1, 10:00pm. After contacts with Xerox concerning the development of the mouse, Jef Raskin was hired by Apple in 1978. It is under his impetus and that of Bill Atkinson 22 The title of Jef Raskin’s thesis (A Hardware-Independent Computer Drawing System Using List-Structured Modeling: The Quick-Draw Graphics System, Pennsylvania State University, 1967) was echoed when Bill Atkinson named the Macintosh’s graphics package. that Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak took note of the research conducted by Xerox PARC on graphic interfaces. Everyone of us knows the rest of the story. In 1979, the CEO of Apple Inc., Steve Jobs, age 24, visited the Xerox facility. In a 1995 documentary, he recalls the shock which this event constituted for him: “They [Xerox] showed me […] three things. […]. One of the things they showed me was object orienting programming […]. The other one they showed me was a networked computer system [of a hundred computers] […]. I didn’t even see that. I was so blinded by the first thing […] which was the graphical user interface. I thought it was the best thing I’d ever seen in my life. Now remember it was very flawed, what we saw was incomplete […] [But, at the time,] within […] ten minutes it was obvious to me that all computers would work like this some day.” 23 Steve Jobs, Triumph of the Nerds: The Rise of Accidental Empires. Documentation. PBS.org (1996), http://www.pbs.org/nerds, access: July, 1, 10:00pm. Following this presentation, obtained in exchange for shares in Apple Inc., Steve Jobs launched the Apple LISA micro-computer, which took the principles of the mouse and the graphic interface from Xerox Star, in 1982. With a price that was too high ($10,000 at the time, or $24,000 today), the LISA was replaced by the much more financially accessible Macintosh, released in 1984. While many still think that Steve Jobs did little more than “steal” the key principles of the Xerox Alto, the history is more complicated than that. The leaders of Xerox had not yet recognized the decisive consequences of what they had discovered, leaving their prospective vision in the hands of the sales and marketing teams, which were focused on photocopiers, the core of the brand, and not on the new market for computers 24 For a detailed history of the Xerox company, see: Douglas K. Smith and Robert C. Alexander, Fumbling the Future: How Xerox Invented, then Ignored, the First Personal Computer (New York 1988).. Bill Atkinson would have to rewrite and improve the quantity of functions in order for the LISA, and then the Macintosh, to take advantage of a “superior” graphic interface (with the addition of scrolling menus, the opening of windows with a double-click, the trash icon, etc). No line of code was “copied and pasted,” strictly speaking 25 Christoph Dernbach, Did Steve Jobs steal everything from Xerox PARC? Mac History (February 2012), http://www.mac-history.net/computer-history/2012-03-22/apple-and-xerox-parc, access: July, 1, 10:00pm.. In order to bolster the supply of software for Apple machines, at the beginning of the 1980s, Steve Jobs invited Microsoft to publish programs for the Macintosh. In spite of Jobs’ request to Bill Gates (then CEO of Microsoft) not to use a mouse-controlled graphic interface before the Macintosh (1984) had been on sale for a year, Microsoft surprised everyone by announcing the operating system Windows 1.0 in 1983 26 Windows 1.0 was not yet a complete operating system, but rather a “graphic shell” that could be used by third-party software. , although it would only make its official debut in 1985. When Jobs, furious, accused Bill Gates of having betrayed him, Gates replied that they had both stolen from their “rich neighbor, Xerox.”27 Andy Hertzfeld, A Rich Neighbor Named Xerox. Folklore.org (November 1983), https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=A_Rich_Neighbor_Named_Xerox.txt, access: July, 1, 10:00pm. See also : Andy Hertzfeld, How the Mac was born, and other tales. Conversation with Scott Ard. CNET (January 2005), http://news.cnet.com/How-the-Mac-was-born%2C-and-other-tales/2100-1082_3-5529081.html, access: July, 1, 10:00pm.. The suit brought against Microsoft by Apple in 1988 was unsuccessful in the courts. Don Norman: the limits of the “user experience” After the release of Microsoft Windows, the design methods used in interface design were structured around scientific disciplines connected with this field. In addition to the expressions “human usability” and “user interface,” that of “user experience” (often shortened to “UX”) then achieved a notable success. The latter seems to appear for the first time in 1986 28 For a detailed chronology of the history of this term, see: Peter Merholz, Whither “User Experience”? Peterme.com (November 1998), http://www.peterme.com/index112498.html, access: July, 1, 10:00pm. in a book co-edited with Donald Norman (a cognitive science researcher), titled User Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction 29 Donald A. Norman and Stephen W. Draper, User Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction (San Diego 1986).. After a consideration of the impossibility of arriving at a univocal meaning by means of standardized images (pictograms), this quotation follows: “Direct Engagement occurs when a user experiences direct interaction with the objects in a domain. Here, there is a feeling of involvement directly with a world of objects rather than of communicating with an intermediary. The interactions are much like interacting with objects in the physical world. […] [T]he interface and the computer become invisible. Although we believe this feeling of direct engagement to be of critical importance […] we know little about the actual requirements for producing it.”30 Edwin L. Hutchins, James D. Hollan, and Donald A. Norman, Direct Manipulation Interfaces, in: User Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction, ed. Donald A. Norman and Stephen W. Draper (San Diego 1986), pp. 114-115. “User experience” can thus be understood as a will to export the Xerox Star design model to fields other than that of screen interfaces and computers which can disappear, becoming “invisible.” Frequently cited as the originator of this expression, Don Norman defined it as follows in 1998: “I invented the term [user experience] because I thought Human Interface and usability 31 The concept of “usability” that Don Norman judges insufficient, was addressed by its proponents, Jeff Rubin and Dana Chisnell, in these terms: “when a product or service is truly usable, the user can do what he or she wants to do the way he or she expects to be able to do it, without hindrance, hesitation, or questions.” Source: Jeff Rubin and Dana Chisnell, Handbook of Usability Testing. Second Edition. How to Plan, Design, and Conduct Effective Tests (Indianapolis 2008 [1994]), p. 4. were too narrow: I wanted to cover all aspects of the person’s experience with a system, including industrial design, graphics, the interface, the physical interaction, and the manual.” 32 Don Norman, quoted in: Peter Merholz, Whither ‘User Experience’? This broader aspect of “user experience” was then refined in the “canonical” version formulated by Jakob Nielsen and Don Norman: “User experience” encompasses all aspects of the end-user’s interaction with the company, its services, and its products. The first requirement for an exemplary user experience is to meet the exact needs of the customer […]. We should also distinguish UX and usability: According to the definition of usability, it is a quality attribute of the UI, covering whether the system is easy to learn, efficient to use, pleasant, and so forth. Again, this is very important, and again total user experience is an even broader concept.” 33 Jakob Nielsen and Don Norman, The Definition of User Experience. Nielsen Norman Group, http://www.nngroup.com/articles/definition-user-experience, access: July, 1, 10:00pm. “Experience design” and the myth of “invisible” data processing This interest, from then on focusing on the user rather than the technological apparatus (the interface), is even more explicit in the phrase “user-centered design” (“UCD”), which consists in basing the whole methodology of design on the central point that is the user. This design methodology enjoyed considerable success, perhaps because of the bond it helped establish between the marketing services tasked with studying consumers and the teams tasked with designing the products. However, by the admission of its own proponent, Don Norman, the term “user” has shown its limitations. In a 2006 article titled “Words Matter. Talk About People: Not Customers, Not Consumers, Not Users,” Don Norman admitted: “We depersonalize the people we study by calling them “users.” Both terms are derogatory. They take us away from our primary mission: to help people. […] People are rich, complex beings. […] A label such as customer, consumer or user ignores [their] […] social structures. […] It is time to wipe words such as consumer, customer, and user from our vocabulary. Time to speak of people. Power to the people.”34 Don Norman, Words Matter. Talk About People: Not Customers, Not Consumers, Not Users. jnd.org (2008), http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/words_matter_talk_a.html, access: July, 1, 10:00pm. In the same way, in 2008: “One of the horrible words we use is “users.” I am on a crusade to get rid of the word “users.” I would prefer to call them “people.” […] We design for people, we don’t design for users.” 35 Don Norman at UX Week 2008, Adaptive Path. YouTube, https://youtu.be/WgJcUHC3qJ8, access: July, 1, 10:00pm. Let us summarize these points. The methodology of “user-centered design” consists in designing so as to treat each human being as a user, as a person dedicated to maintaining with companies only relations “centered” on his or her “exact needs,”36 Jakob Nielsen and Don Norman, The Definition of User Experience. Nielsen Norman Group, http://www.nngroup.com/articles/definition-user-experience, access: July, 1, 10:00pm. concerning which there should be no “hindrance[s], hesitation[s], or questions.”37 Jeff Rubin and Dana Chisnell, Handbook of Usability Testing. How to Plan, Design, and Conduct Effective Tests (New York 2008), p. 4. This current of thought results from a scientific modeling of the principles that governed the design of the Xerox Star in order to make it a “personal” machine, optimizing the tasks to be performed by the user. Retrospectively, the performative texts of Don Norman speaking in praise of the study of “needs,” by the admission of their author, led to a dead end, because the human being cannot be reduced to a specific role 38 This idea was inscribed within the ISO standards, which propose replacing the expression “user-centered experience” with “human-centred design.” See: ISO 9241-210: 2010. Ergonomics of human-system interaction — Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems. Iso.org (March 2010), https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/en/#iso:std:iso:9241:-210:ed-1:v1:en, access: July, 1, 10:00pm.. Such a reversal of thought might be amusing. However, on closer inspection, wouldn’t one also have to interpret these contradictory injunctions as the sign of a power belonging not to the “people,” but to those who make these speeches? In other words, isn’t this an indictment of those who are constantly getting richer (in the banal sense of the term) by controlling the circulation of the design methodologies that are to be gotten rid of by this “crusade”? More than a plea in favor of taking complexity into account in design, this “appeal to the human,” for Don Norman, provides a rationale for gradually eliminating “interfaces” in the name of an “invisible” computing 39 Donald A. Norman, The Invisible Computer. Why Good Products Can Fail, the Personal Computer Is So Complex, and Information Appliances Are the Solution (Cambridge MA, 1998)., the products of which would be “human-centered.”40 Chapter 2 of The Invisible Computer is titled “Growing up: Moving from technology-centered to human-centered products.” This prediction of invisibility, passing under the guise of a change in vocabulary, a priori innocent, was so absorbed so thoroughly by the corporations that in 2012, Apple made it into a selling point: “We believe technology is at its very best when it’s invisible, when you’re conscious only of what you’re doing, not the device you’re doing it with. An iPad is the perfect expression of that idea. It’s just this magical pane of glass. It can become anything you want it to be […] It’s a more personal experience with technology than people have ever had.” 41 Official Apple (New) iPad Trailer. YouTube (March 2012), https://youtu.be/RQieoqCLWDo , access: July, 1, 10:00pm. However, Don Norman’s big picture does not mean that his idea of “invisible” computing is viable. The important term here is “experience,” which goes hand in hand with that of “magic.” What could be more magical, indeed, than experiencing an “invisible” technology? The artist Olia Lialina, in a critical article on the study of the concept of user, does not join in the chorus: “This is why Interface Design starts to rename itself to Experience Design — whose primary goal is to make users forget that computers and interfaces exist. With Experience Design there is only you and your emotions to feel, goals to achieve, tasks to complete. ” 42 Olia Lialina, Turing Complete User (2012), http://contemporary-home-computing.org/turing-complete-user/, access: July, 1, 10:00pm. A world without experience In the conclusion of her article studying the limitations of an exclusion of the term user of the methods of interface design, Olia Lialina proposes to return to foundations predating the Xerox Star, namely those developed by the computer scientist Ted Nelson in his 1974 work Computer Lib/Dream Machine: “COMPUTING HAS ALWAYS BEEN PERSONAL. By this I mean that if you weren’t intensely involved in it, sometimes with every fiber in your mind atwitch, you weren’t doing computers, you were just a user. If you get involved, it involves all of you: your heart and mind and way of doing things and your image of yourself. A whole way of life.” 43 Theodor Holm Nelson, Computer Lib. You can and must understand computers now (self-published, revised edition 1987 [1974]), p. 3. The argument is strong. Nelson’s denunciation of a “naïve” use points to the risk of a loss of contact with the computer, which, from Xerox Star to the iPad, presupposes that everything “real” (real life, creativity, etc) is external to the machine. However, in spite of the ascendancy of tactile interfaces (without mouses), in spite of the emergence of gestural interfaces (without buttons) and sound interfaces (without screens), and in spite of the return of command-line interfaces (without icons), it is clear that the great principles of the graphic interfaces created at Xerox PARC at the beginning of the 1970s are still the main ones governing our relations with electronic machines – which are not yet “invisible,” far from it. Take, for example, the “Apple Human Interface Guidelines” 44 See for example: “Designing for Yosemite: […] A great OS X app integrates seamlessly into this environment, while at the same time providing custom functionality and a unique user experience.” Human Interface Guidelines, developer.apple.com, https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/UserExperience/Conceptual/OSXHIGuidelines, access: July, 1, 10:00pm. and Google’s “Material Design,” 45 Google Material Design, material.io (first version published June 2014), https://www.google.com/design/spec/material-design/introduction.html, access: July, 1, 10:00pm. which, in the 2010s, are the recommended readings – with the proviso of reading critically – for anyone interested in interface design. In spite of its widespread acceptance, the cognitive model of an interface coupled with an idealized user (understood as a bundle of habits) has its limitations. Since Jef Raskin’s 1967 text associating “human usability” with efficient task completion 46 See Jef Raskin, A Hardware-Independent Computer Using List-Structured Modeling: The Quick-Draw Graphics System (Pennsylvania, 1967)., the will to create a graphic interface to procure for the “user” a new work environment and new methods “to accomplish the same goals as before” 47 David Canfield Smith, Charles Irby, Ralph Kimball, Bill Verplank, and Eric Harslem, Designing the Star User Interface, p. 248. has consisted in envisaging electronic media as “problem solvers” rather than as powers of transformation and invention. However, as the humanities specialist Yves Citton perceptively notes: “The invention of communication technologies […] takes place within a vast nebula of hopes, anxieties, dreams, tinkerings, parallel knowledges, subversive appropriations and reappropriations, crossing many traditional disciplinary fields […]. Indeed, our media cannot be reduced to mere instruments for the transmission of forms and contents: it functions, first and foremost, in just the same way as the mediums who fascinate us, delude us, hypnotize us and stimulate us via simulations that penetrate our senses.” 48 Yves Citton, Gestes d’humanités. Anthropologie sauvage de nos expériences esthétiques (Paris, 2012), pp. 21–22. Taking into consideration these foundational design texts of the computer age, it is obvious that electronic machines raise questions that did not exist before. But perhaps it is precisely against these innovations that methodologies of design were themselves designed with an eye to preserving the powers and knowledges already in place. In spite of its undeniably advanced technology, the Xerox Star did not have the full support of the corporate leaders, who preferred to focus on the photocopier business, more in phase with the “uses” of the time. In this history of “user-centered design,” an expression originating after the Xerox Star, it is indeed a matter of a concern about forgetting the “useful,” the utility of the object. But is this really possible in a world in which marketing services, for example, constantly seek to anticipate consumers’ “needs ” by statistical processes linked to observation protocols? Another factor suggesting a design constructing against technological innovations – i.e., for habits – is this history of the “center,” a term which should now be examined. This twofold suffix coupled with design could have been the subject of variations. Why does one never speak, for example, of “form-centered” design, for example, or of “practice-centered” design? Perhaps is this because these two concepts (there could be others) resist the idea of a “center,” of delimitation. If one considers the concept of form, it is notable that this, historically, was related to design – according to the formula of the architect Louis Sullivan, according to which “form ever follows function.” As a canny observer of a history that sometimes “tramples” (in which the issues are sometimes obscured, sometimes rediscovered), the philosopher Pierre-Damien Huyghe notes that the concept of form expresses the “artistic interest” of design: “It was not only a question of creating potentially functional objects. The concern for making form is absolutely essential to the design. We may note here that the Latin forma can be translated as “beauty.””49 Pierre-Damien Huyghe, On appelle beaucoup trop de choses ‘design’. Interview with Julie Delem. Naja21 (April 2015), http://www.naja21.com/fr/espace-journal/pierre-damien-huyghe-on-appelle-beaucoup-trop-de-choses-design, access: July, 1, 10:00pm. In a more general way, design, in so far as it encompasses the capacity to transform the world, cannot “center” on anything. Design is only of any interest if it is derived from tensions, polarities, contradictions – in other words, the opposite of a center. Olia Lialina, in the conclusion of her article, also refuses to let herself be reduced to a label: “We, general purpose users — not hackers and not people — who are challenging, consciously or subconsciously, what we can do and what computers can do, are the ultimate participants of man-computer symbiosis.” 50 Olia Lialina, Turing Complete User. One must then reconsider the fact that the conceptual model of the 1981 Xerox Star interface was decided “before” the material (hardware) existed, “two years before we wrote a single line of actual product software.” 51 David Canfield Smith, Charles Irby, Ralph Kimball, Bill Verplank, and Eric Harslem, Designing the Star User Interface, p. 246. Retrospectively, this account can be understood as that of a missed encounter with the otherness of the machines, since it is, in effect, a matter of subordinating the digital technology (hardware and software) to a “model,” i.e., to something anticipated and stabilized. This progressive distancing of the concept of the “General Purpose User” 52 Olia Lialina, Turing Complete User.op. cit (active and polyvalent) has made possible the expressions “human-centered design” and “experience design”, which incarnate the promise of a world in which one could “do whatever one wishes,” immediately, as if by “magic.” But which kind of “doing” are we talking about when invisibility becomes the ideal for the machines? This myth of the invisibility of technological innovations in fact already existed in a nascent form at the dawn of personal computing. In a 1979 commercial for the Xerox Alto intended to demonstrate the power of the “office of the future,” an office worker (Bill) arrives at work and greets his colleagues, coffee in hand. When he arrives at his station, he turns on his Alto computer and addresses it verbally: “Hello, Fred.” The computer answers him: “Hello, Bill.” After a series of tasks, easily solved by the machine, comes the final dialogue: Bill (tired): “Anything else?” Fred: A richly detailed bouquet of daisies spreads across the screen. Bill (puzzled): “Flowers? What flowers?” Fred: “Your anniversary is tonight.” Bill (chagrined): “My anniversary. I forgot.” Fred: “It’s okay. We’re only human.” 53 Douglas K. Smith and Robert C. Alexander, Fumbling the Future, (Indiana, 1999), p. 20. What such initiatives describe, paradoxically, is a world without experience [un monde sans expérience] 54 The French word expérience can mean “experience” or “experiment.” (Translator’s note.), in the sense in which experience/experimentation can take place only within a field of possibilities open to uncertainty: Economic power is what the socialization of experiences implements. However, if this implementation augments shared experience and perception day by day, it does not appear authentically. Most often, it borrows the forms of habit, it slips mimetically into experience. 55 Pierre-Damien Huyghe, Faire place, in: Qu’est-ce que l’art domestique ?, ed. Richard Conte and Sandrine Morsillo (Paris, 2006), p. 29. Symptomatic of an era when “apparatuses” 56 The apparatus is defined by Pierre-Damien Huyghe as “a technological method distinct from the tool and the machine [which produces] within us a power of perception, a particular form of sensibility.” See: Pierre-Damien Huyghe, Introduction au dossier “Temps et appareils”. Plastik 3 (2003), p. 4. are no longer objects worthy of interest, human-machine relations are increasingly marked (branded) by the registers of utility, output, or time-saving. The human experience of “experience design” is often reduced to an experimental situation, that of a rat seeking the way out of a labyrinth. Even if it is “friendly” or “invisible,” this technological medium is no less a straightjacket, a controlled situation in which any exchange is anticipated and preprogrammed. When we are mirrored in the form of the “human, all too human” computer, we “ordinary people” are the ones who stand to lose sight of our complex and infinite possibilities.
Notions
Personnes citées
Résumé
Les collectionneurs achetaient leur Van Gogh dans le plus grand secret. Aujourd’hui, sur le Web, on adore montrer les œuvres virtuelles qu’on a la richesse de s’offrir. Décryptage du nouveau paraître digital par Sophie Abriat pour la revue Madame Figaro.
Notions
Personnes citées
Objets mentionnés
Date
December 2018
Type
PublicationContexte
Article coécrit avec Alexandre Saint-Jevin et publié dans la revue de recherche Reel-Virtuel.com, no 6 « Les normes du numérique »
Résumé
Dans le champ universitaire, la construction et la transmission des savoirs est encore trop souvent ralentie (voire empêchée) par des enjeux commerciaux et/ou par une méconnaissance des enjeux de la culture du libre issue du champ informatique. Des chercheurs peuvent ainsi se voir dépossédés de leurs travaux à cause de contrats d’édition abusifs, ou même être condamnés à de lourdes peines pour avoir partagé des contenus sous copyrights. Mais, au-delà des problèmes légaux, que peuvent faire les chercheurs et designers pour favoriser la libération des connaissances ? Quelles pratiques de publication, de contribution et de valorisation inventer pour répondre à ces enjeux ? La culture libre et les pratiques de design pourraient-elles libérer la recherche de la prégnance des enjeux capitalistes ?
Notions
Personnes citées
Date
January 2013
Type
PublicationContexte
Anthony Masure, « Makers : Fable labs ? », Strabic.fr, janvier 2013
Résumé
Après La longue traîne (2006) et Free ! Entrez dans l’économie du gratuit (2009), Chris Anderson revient nous narrer les tendances du futur dans Makers. La nouvelle révolution industrielle (2012). Si ces précédents ouvrages restaient cantonnés au domaine des écrans, celui-ci explore le vaste champ du numérique et des objets « autofabriqués ? ». L’ex-rédacteur en chef du magazine culte Wired est-il convaincant dans son nouveau rôle d’évangéliste des machines de fabrication automatisées ?
Notions
Personnes citées
Objets mentionnés
Date
November 2018
Type
PublicationContexte
Article publié dans la revue de recherche Sciences du Design, Paris, Puf, no 8, novembre 2018, p. 67-78
Résumé
Selon le philosophe Jacques Derrida, la distinction métaphysique entre l’écriture et la parole (logos) entraîne une dépréciation de l’écriture et interroge par extension la prétention d’une « pure » pensée à exister séparément de sa représentation graphique. Nous proposons de mettre en résonance l’analyse de ce « logocentrisme » avec le champ des publications numériques de recherche, où la forme demeure majoritairement impensée. En montrant au travers de l’étude de deux publications en ligne (GAM3R 7H30RY et Haunted by Algorithms) comment certaines pratiques de design graphique permettent de dépasser l’opposition forme/contenu, nous soutenons que la prise en compte de la dimension esthétique de l’écriture peut contribuer à dérouter et à renouveler les pratiques de recherche communément installées.
Notions
Personnes citées
Objets mentionnés
Date
December 2019
Type
PublicationContexte
Article publié dans la revue Cités, Paris, Puf, no 80, dossier « L’intelligence artificielle : enjeux éthiques et politiques » dirigé par Vanessa Nurock.
Résumé
Le regain d’intérêt pour l’intelligence artificielle (IA) des années 2010 engendre des programmes « auto-apprenants », ceux des techniques du deep learning, dont les logiques de fonctionnement sont structurellement inintelligibles (principe de la « boîte noire »). Ces IA investissent progressivement les capacités d’invention et d’imagination, et tendent donc à se substituer aux tâches communément attribuées aux designers. Le risque est alors que le design ne devienne qu’une puissance de production de marchandises et de motifs automatisés. Face au formatage des expériences humaines dans ce qu’elles ont de plus singulier, quelles marges de manœuvre peut-on inventer ? Des contre-pouvoirs sont-ils encore envisageables ?
Notions
Personnes citées
Objets mentionnés
Date
September 2022
Type
PublicationContexte
Paper written with Guillaume Helleu for the journal AOC, which appeared in September 2022. Translated from French by Aviva Cashmira Kakar.
Résumé
NFTs (non-fungible tokens) appeared in 2017. They are tamper-proof decentralized digital certificates which have gained fame because of their appropriation by the art world. NFTs have attracted a great deal of controversy, and are frequently accused of being speculative, useless and polluting. We propose to examine these polemics, founded for the most part, in order to show that other approaches are possible. In fact, artistic applications are merely one link in the chain, and NFTs cannot be reduced to their mere visible aspect, they require a wider examination of their value systems, distribution chains, and methods of governance.
Date
December 2022
Type
PublicationContexte
Article rédigé pour la revue de recherche Multitudes, no 89, « Design is the answer, but what was the question? », dir. Francesca Cozzolino, Emanuele Quinz, Barbara Szaniecki.
Résumé
Terrain d’étude privilégié des productions industrielles, le design est pointé aujourd’hui comme un champ à reconstruire. Depuis quelques années, il se voit affublé d’une multitude de qualificatifs : « écodesign », « design social », « design éthique », « design inclusif », etc. On peut se demander si cette tendance à le renommer ne met pas en évidence une difficulté à comprendre ce qui pose problème dans le design « tout court » : le design aurait‑il perdu de sa force subversive pour être désormais parfaitement intégré aux forces productives ? Comment situer le rôle ou la tâche du design, pris entre désir et besoin, entre économie et morale ? Existe‑t‑il une responsabilité propre au design ?
Notions
Personnes citées
Objets mentionnés
Date
May 2023
Type
ConférenceContexte
Conférence donnée dans le cadre du séminaire « Design graphique et sciences sociales », session « Visual analytics et humanités numériques », dir. Charlotte Bigg, Paris, EHESS.
Résumé
Cette communication traitera des enjeux des interfaces de partage du savoir. Si l’on comprend la recherche comme la production de nouvelles connaissances, qu’en est-il de la façon dont celles-ci sont « formées » visuellement ? Autrement dit, que gagnerait-on à ne pas opposer production et communication mais à les étudier de façon entrelacée ? Suffit-il de produire des connaissances pour qu’elles soient opérantes ? Nous proposons d’aborder ces questions sous l’angle des plateformes scientifiques d’archivage et de consultation de documents historiques afin de situer le livrable principal du projet ANR #Design
Notions
Personnes citées
Objets mentionnés
Médias
Date
April 2019
Type
PublicationContexte
Actes du colloque de Cerisy Écologie de l’attention et archéologie des médias (juin 2016)
Résumé
La notification, cette forme de communication par fragments, interruptions et redondances s’est renforcée avec l’émergence des terminaux mobiles qui permettent d’accéder et de traiter des données en temps réel. Entre le manque investi par le numérique et la (supposée) saturation d’informations conduisant, pour certains chercheurs, à une crise de l’attention, comment les notifications numériques participent-elles d’une reconfiguration sociotechnique de l’expérience du manque ? Quelles sont les spécificités de ce milieu attentionnel ?
Personnes citées
Date
November 2016
Type
ConférenceContexte
Conférence donnée au colloque international de typographie Automatic Type Design 2, ANRT Nancy, 18 novembre 2016
Résumé
Le design, historiquement, est marqué par la volonté d’insuffler une dimension humaine dans la production industrielle mécanisée. Alors que le numérique permet d’automatiser la construction de formes via des agents non humains (programmes, etc.), qu’en est-il, dès lors, des rapports entre le design et les « humanités numériques » ? Comment concevoir des formes visuelles capables de rendre intelligible la complexité des environnements techniques contemporains ? Quels rôles un design typographique au fait du numérique peut-il jouer dans l’élaboration de langages visuels capables de pluraliser les rapports au savoir ?
Notions
Personnes citées
Objets mentionnés
Résumé
Depuis le développement de l’informatique personnelle au tournant des années 1980, le design graphique a connu de profondes mutations au contact des technologies numériques et des pratiques afférentes. Quelles sont les grandes catégories et les enjeux de ce rapprochement ? À quels nouveaux défis pourraient être confrontés les designers graphiques ces dix prochaines années ?
Notions
Personnes citées
Objets mentionnés
Date
June 2018
Type
ConférenceContexte
Intervention aux journées d’études « Documenter la production artistique : données, outils, usages », Nice, Villa Arson, 4-6 juin 2018. Version retravaillée et augmentée d’une conférence donnée en avril 2016 au colloque « Collecta : des pratiques antiquaires aux humanités numériques », Paris, École du Louvre.
Résumé
Dans son essai Mal d’archive (1995), le philosophe Jacques Derrida mettait en exergue le paradoxe de toute archive : d’un côté la volonté de mettre des marques à l’abri de l’effacement du temps et de l’oubli, et de l’autre côté le fait que ces éléments, une fois stockés, sont dès lors disponible à la reproduction et menacent donc l’idée de stabilité. Cette notion d’archive « vivante », mobile, nous semble d’autant plus prégnante lorsque se pose la question de l’aspect de sa structure et de son fonds, car tout travail de design graphique engage un déplacement quand à l’original. Face à la permanence et au pouvoir de l’arkhè, le design est donc toujours un risque, un « gage d’avenir » (Derrida) et de nouveaux commencements.
Personnes citées
Objets mentionnés
Médias
Date
January 2019
Type
ConférenceContexte
Conférence à l’occasion des Rencontres crossmédias IDEFI CréaTIC, dir. Ghislaine Azémard & Arnaud Laborderie, MSH Paris Nord
Résumé
Alors que la plupart de ses projets s’incarnent dans des interfaces en ligne, les humanités numériques – ce champ à la croisée de l’informatique et des sciences humaines et sociales – ne se sont que trop peu préoccupées des enjeux du design. Le recours quasi systématique à des formats de publication automatisés (templates, etc.) montre en creux que l’aspect sensible existe toujours, y compris quand il est impensé. Pour peu que le couple informatique/SHS fasse place au design, les humanités numériques pourraient alors devenir un laboratoire critique des mutations de la culture au contact des technologies numériques. Nous proposerons quelques pistes de travail allant dans ce sens, avec un focus sur les interfaces numériques des collections en ligne.
Notions
Personnes citées
Objets mentionnés
Date
May 2019
Type
ConférenceContexte
Communication dans le cadre de la chaire de philosophie à l’hôpital, séminaire « Design with Care », dir. Cynthia Fleury et Antoine Fenoglio (Les Sismo), Paris, Cnam
Résumé
Alors que nous manquons encore de recul pour comprendre ce que les média, flux et interactions numériques nous font, font avec nous, ou font contre nous, quels autres modes de conception et modèles économiques peut-on inventer ? Comment une compréhension plus fine des différentes théories psychologiques pourrait-elle permettre de déjouer une certaine approche neurocognitiviste assimilant le psychisme humain à une commutation de circuits ? Pourrait-on permettre au plus grand nombre de comprendre et d’accéder aux paramètres façonnant l’attention en contexte numérique ? Le design pourrait-il devenir, à rebours de l’exploitation de nos vulnérabilités psychiques, l’endroit d’une possible « écologie de l’attention » ?
Notions
Personnes citées
Objets mentionnés
Médias
Date
September 2020
Type
ConférenceContexte
Interview pour le podcast « Design MasterClass », no 10, « Design & attention : captation des esprits ».
Résumé
Podcast « Design MasterClass », n o 10, « Design & attention : captation des esprits », 7 septembre 2020 « L’attention est une faculté naturelle indispensable à la survie. Pourtant, il est facile d’oublier à quel point on ne la maitrise pas. L’essor et l’accélération des technologies d’information et de communication ont donné naissance à un capitalisme cognitif dont l’ingrédient est notre attention. Aujourd’hui, l’attention que nous consacrons aux choses à une valeur marchande. Elle est constamment chassée, captée et monétisée dans ce qu’on peut appeler l’économie de l’attention. Le design, en tant que force créatrice de l’environnement attentionnel, joue un rôle primordial dans cette économie. Sylvia Fredriksson, Anthony Masure, Mellie La Roque et Lénaïc Faure sont nos invité•es pour examiner la place du design, des designers et designeuses dans cette économie de l’attention. Cet épisode à été enregistré à distance durant la période de confinement, il se compose de 3 chapitres : – 01:30 • Chapitre 1 : Le capitalisme cognitif – 13:40 • Chapitre 2 : Le design attentionnel – 40:03 • Chapitre 3 : L’éthique et la responsabilité dans le design – 56:48 • Conclusion Vous souhaitez approfondir et mieux comprendre ce sujet ? Nous avons compilé une liste de ressources que vous pouvez retrouver ici 👉 http://bit.ly/dmc-10-ressources. Cet épisode à été réalisé et monté par Alex Mohebbi avec l’aide de Anthony Adam. Les voix-off sont de Anaïs Texier. »
Notions
Personnes citées
Objets mentionnés
Médias
Date
September 2022
Type
ConférenceContexte
Interview pour le podcast « Design MasterClass », no 36, « Enseignement du design ».
Résumé
Podcast « Design MasterClass », n o 36, « Enseignement du design », 7 septembre 2022. « Comment le design est-il enseigné en France ? Est-ce qu’il faut faire une formation pour devenir designer ou designeuse ? Est-ce que le design manque de reconnaissance académique ? Ce sont des questions que nous allons approfondir du point de vue des pédagogues avec nos invité•es, Jocelyne LeBoeuf, Anthony Masure et Rachel Donnat. Au sommaire de cet épisode : Chapitre 1 : Les origines et la structure de l’enseignement du Design en France. Le rapport entre l’enseignement et l’entreprise : comment les forces socio-économiques et le marché du travail influencent l’enseignement du design ? Chapitre 2 : La conception d’une formation : commet les pédagogues définissent le contenu des formations. La différence entre les formations initiales et les formations professionnelles. Chapitre 3 : Critiques des modèles d’enseignements présents et des réflexions pour le futur. Chapitre 4 : La recherche académique en design : un manque de reconnaissance ? » Cet épisode à été réalisé par Alex Mohebbi, avec l’aide de Emeline Bailleul et Anthony ADAM. On remercie Karl Pineau (École de Design Nantes Atlantique, Designers Éthiques) pour son aide. Les voix-off sont de Loulou Hanssen.
Notions
Personnes citées
Objets mentionnés
Médias