2nd Workshop of the Nordic Interactive Multimedia Research School 28.-30.5.1999
University of Art and Design, Helsinki, Finland.

NIMRES speech 29.5.99 at UIAH Helsinki

Jukka Ylitalo: Performance of the User of Interface

I want to draw a little map of concepts and questions. First of all: "distorting mirrors". Distorting mirror is a concept that I adopt from David Rokeby (the sensing device that I used in some of my installations was also designed by Rokeby: Very Nervous System analyses motion in real time from video image).

Let me introduce my point of view on the concept of distorting mirror by reflecting on what happens when you write a diary.

Writing is one way to reflect oneself. It's one technology of reflection. A popular way to reflect oneself is to write a diary. When we write about ourselves trying to understand ourselves something astounding happens. The very process of writing reveals new things to us. The very act of writing brings out new ideas. It is as if in the act of writing between the lines there lurks things that first were barely recognisable. When rewriting they often come into presence. Writing is not just transparent medium to record pre-existent thinking. The very act of writing intervenes and hijacks the original idea scattering seeds of new ideas. It has a logic of its own and this logic is not totally controllable.

Writing a diary or writing about ones own feelings, writing a love letter for example is a form of reflection and this reflection seems to be distorting. It seems to be a distorting mirror. It never reflects back faithfully the original image. Could it be that there never was an original image of the self to begin with? The unshakeable presence of self to the self is never a simple presence but a process of unfolding. If this is the case the crucial question is: what is the form of this unfolding? What if there is infinite diverse ways to engage in this unfolding?

Computer as distorting mirror:

Computer is a calculator. It can manipulate images and sounds. It is a means of expression. With computer we can "write" images and sounds. Even if we are not always using computer for expression it still "reflects" back an image of ourselves.

Let's consider the standard user interface. To quote Rokeby: "A standard GUI interface is a mirror that reflects back a severely misshapen human being with large hands, huge forefinger, one immense eye and moderate sized ears. The rest of the body is simply the location of backaches, neck strain and repetitive stress injuries." (from David Rokeby's article: "The Construction of Experience")

It is interesting that Rokeby raises the question of ergonomics simultaneusly with a metaphorics of reflection. As if the question of ergonomics is not just a question of health complications but also question of the image of ourselves.

Let me quote Friedrich Nietzsche, a fragment from his Twilight of Idols to introduce what I would call "ergonomics of thinking".

Nietzsche sites Flaubert who writes "On ne peut penser et écrire q'assis."One can think and write only sitting down". And Nietzsche responds. Now I got you Nihilist! Sitting down is precisely the sin against holy ghost. Only thoughs that came from walking have any value.

[Damit habe ich dich, Nihilist! Das Sitzfleisch ist gerade die Sünde wider den heiligen Geist. Nur die ergangenen Gedanken haben Wert.]

Nietzsche uses the word Sitzfleisch (to have sitting flesh) referring to the sins of flesh.

I think it is interesting that even now, hundred years later in academic world, in its institutional practice the ergonomic context for any kind of creative activity is considered almost totally irrelevant. By ergonomic context I mean the orientations of our physical expressivity as they are defined by technologies and practices. Despite this in the academic world the concept of body is a popular issue. It has been "rediscovered" and it is almost a theoretical dogma to condemn Descartes with his understanding of the body and mind as ontologically separate.

But in practice it seems that nobody in academic world is really researching it. How are embodied action and thinking interconnected?

I would call this research ergonomics of thinking.

This research begins with questions like:
What is the effect of the way how we are orienting our physical actions for process of thinking?

And as Nietzsche would put it what is its effect for the value of thinking?

Lets go back to the distorting mirror and computer as a distorting mirror.

The distortion that Rokeby is referring to operates in the level of representations. But more fundamentally this reflection defines possibilities of action. The interface defines the range of possibilities of physical action of the user. This would mean that the design of interface is design for the ergonomics of thinking. As Terry Winograd might put it (live teleconference lecture 28.5.1999 at Kiasma Museum of Contemporary art Helsinki, Finland) it would be design for design or ergonomics of design and Nietzsche reading Winograd might say it is design for the value of thinking. This is what computing engineers are doing whether they wanted or not: Design for the value(s) of thinking.

I am trying to consider the question of interface as a question ergonomics of thinking.
With the word ergonomics I am not just referring to the problems such as backaches, neck strain and repetitive stress injuries. Those symptoms are clearly visible health issues. But what if there is also a hidden cognitive side of it? What if there is risk of repetitive stress injuries in our ways of thinking and reflecting ourselves?

This leads me to a question: Why are some people still talking about human-computer interaction? If you have a calculator or a hammer you don't speak about human-calculator-interaction or human-hammer-interaction.

This seems to be a conceptual problem that also facilitates certain mystifying element about computer media. Let me attempt a (re)definition of interface. There is sensing, processing and response. There is input-devices, software operating in CPU and output devices.

What if, contrary to the common use of language, we would conceptualize interface not just as input or output devices (or the graphical user interface that creates a virtual input device) but instead as the unity of sensing, processing and response and the technology responsible for all those functions: The computer AS A WHOLE is a interface.

Computer as a whole is the interface between our actions and meaning. Computerized sensing, processing, and response is interface between physical actions and signs. The interface also defines and redefines this interrelationship between meaning and our actions.