English 794 – Winter 2002                    

The Rhetoric of Technology: Critiquing Computer Interfaces

 

Neil Randall

HH 224

888-4567 x3397

nrandall@uwaterloo.ca

 

In this course we will use concepts drawn from a variety of theoretical sources to determine a method and a system for critiquing computer interfaces according to the communicative and self-revelatory effectiveness of their designs for their intended interactors, and for redesigning existing interfaces and conceptualizing new ones. We will explore the popular interfaces of productivity applications, operating systems, Web sites, games, creativity software, etc. – as systems that rely on symbolic action and meaning-making in order to mediate between the needs of the human being performing interactions and the requirements of the machine in responding in symbols comprehensible to that human being. All elements of interfaces will undergo analysis and critique, ranging from how icons convey meaning through how menu commands construct syntax, and from how graphical layouts guide the reception of information through how hidden elements both increase and inhibit the sense of interaction control.

 

Essentially, this is a course in and about interaction design. According to Robert Reimann of Cooper Interaction Design (www.cooper.com), “interaction design as a discipline borrows theory and technique from traditional design, psychology, and technical disciplines. It is a synthesis, however—more than a sum of its parts, with its own unique methods and practices. It is also very much a design discipline, with a different approach than that of scientific and engineering disciplines”. Reimann goes on to explain how the new, emerging interaction design discipline differs from the extremely well established Human-Computer Interaction (HCI or CHI) discipline, suggesting that “interaction designers approach the design of products “as gestalts, not simply as sets of features and attributes,” and “by looking at the future – seeing things as they might be, not necessarily as they are.”

 

Carnegie Mellon University if one of a small but growing number of universities offering programs in interaction design. Their Masters program is based upon research that begun as HCI scholarship, but that pointed in new directions. “What was emerging from this work, their program PDF states (www.cmu.edu/cfa/design/programs/mdes/ID_program.pdf), “was a new model for the development of human-computer interfaces. The old model accepted the fact that systems engineers designed the entire interface: the system architecture, the programming, how data was to appear on the screen, and how the user would interact (communicate) with the system. While intentions were noble, the results were problematic. A key assumption was that the user population resembled programmers: men and women who worked at computers and wrote computer code for hours each day. The fallacy quickly became evident. There was a recognition that other fields of knowledge had to contribute to the conception, planning, and execution of a system interface. These fields included cognition, visual and verbal communication, and user observation and evaluation, among others. . . . The focus became the human component of the human-computer equation”.

 

What the interaction design concept continues to do, however, is ground human-computer interaction, for the most part, in the tool-user paradigm that has dominated the study of computers since their inception. This course extends the range of interaction design by proceeding from the premise that the tool-user paradigm remains useful to an important but limited degree. For an increasing number of people, computers are far more than just tools; they are, more importantly, a partner in an interactive process. We have barely begun to study the complexities of that process, but interaction design takes its focus from it. In this course, we will examine the process from a range of perspectives that contribute to the overarching concept of communication. We will not abandon the tool-user paradigm, certainly, because it remains central to the design of most existing interfaces, but we will explore how to modify this paradigm to include concepts of interaction and communication, for the purpose of refocusing those interfaces. We will explore in detail the nature of communication possible between interactor and interface, and the methods by which we can begin to design according to our conclusions.

 

 

Required Reading

 

Johnson, Mark. The Body in the Mind.

 

Johnson, Steven. Interface Culture.

 

Norman, Donald. The Design of Everyday Things.

 

Raskin, Jef. The Humane Interface.

 

Chandler, Daniel. A Beginner’s Guide to Semiotics (http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/)

 

Dillman, Richard. Happy Fun Communication Land. (http://www.rdillman.com/HFCL/)

 

All papers in the “Iconic Communication” section at

http://www.intellectbooks.com/iconic/iconic.htm

 

 

 

 

 

 

Required Familiarity

 

Kress, Gunther and Theo van Leeuwen. Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. Routledge, 1996.

 

Foss, Sonja, et al. Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric. 3rd ed. Waveland, 1990.

 

Jakob Nielsen’s pages at www.useit.com

 

Rhetorical Analysis resources at

http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Functions/mcs.html

 

 

Rhetorical Study resources at http://www.uiowa.edu/~commstud/resources/rhetorical.html

 

 

Semiotics resources at http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/semiotics.html

 

 

Communication Theory Resources at http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/comm_theory.html

 

 

Communication Theory archives at http://www.afirstlook.com/archther.cfm.

 

 

Social Semiotics resources at http://www.und.ac.za/und/ccms/socialsemiotics/semiotics_index.htm

 

 

Communication and Media resources at http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Functions/mcs.html

 

 

Interface Design resources at http://www.chesco.com/~cmarion/Design/UIDesign.html

 

 

 

Assignments

 

Analysis of interface metaphors, based primarily on the theories of Mark Johnson – 30%, 2000 words, due Feb. 11

 

Group redesign of interface metaphors, demonstrating readings from  – 10%, presentations on Feb. 11

 

Analysis of one interface, based primarily on the methodology of Jef Raskin  – 30%, 2000 words, due Mar. 18.

 

Group design of interface – 30%, presentations Apr. 1