- Email: [email protected]
Interfacing technology
Computers and Composition
13, 303-315 (1996)
Interfacing Technology KARIN MARDSJ~ Linkiiping University
Language and technologies are often regarded as two separate issues, issues with very little in common. Language is often regarded as something that “mirrors” reality, that is, the technology of the material world. In this article, another view of language is advocated The interface (of technologies) is what meets the user, through the notion of “interfaces.” and it includes both technology and linguistic devices of different kinds. This extended interface concept is very useful in the classroom because it may help the writing student adopt a richer view of longuage and o more complex understanding of the relation between language and technology.
classrooms
context
culture
rhetorics
INTERFACES
home pages
interfaces
technology
AND CLASSROOMS
In writing classes, we meet students who have different goals, and we have quite a few goals for them. We want them to become more comfortable and skilled as writers and we want to help them feel more confident in their use of language as a tool. As part of that goal we want them to learn how to use computers for several different reasons: as a means of communication (e-mail), as support for their writing processes (word processing), and in their search for information (World Wide Web, databases). We also want to help students develop their critical thinking, and one particular aspect of that is the point of this article: I have through several years of teaching technical communication to engineering students found it more and more important to help students view language in a wider sense, view language as part of, and embedded in, technology. Or, put the other way around, I have tried to help them see technology and our experience with it as embedded in language, as linguistic artifacts of different kinds. Language is not just a “product” on the finished pages of a paper or a report, something that is submitted to some formal demands and some ambitions concerning comprehensibility. It is in the technology, something that can help us use technology, something that can guide-give perspective to-our ways of viewing technology. I think of language as both a tool (for communication and writing) and an artifact, a very much designed artifact that we meet inside technologies, in the “interface.” The first view, of language as a tool, is rather easy to share with students, as it is analogous with their view of technology, of computers, and of other things. But the second view, of
I am grateful to Bo Dahlbom, Department of Informatics at Giiteborg University, for the fruitful discussions we have had about the concept of interfaces. Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to Karin Mtidsjii, Department of Technology and Social Change, LinkGping University, § 581 83 Linkaping, Sweden. e-mail:.
303
304
MARDSJCI
language as a designed artifact, part of society, is usually a bit more difficult for students to understand. Why is it important to share this view with students? And why is the writing class a natural place for doing this? These are the questions I seek to answer. To begin with, I must admit that there are no strict boundaries between these two views on language: The tool view is sort of the underlying concept in both cases. But our students tend to think of language as a tool in a too technical sense, and they easily tend to think: “If I arrange this document according to the rules of document composition and find some nice fonts for the printout, then the text will be fine.” I do not want to be unfair; students do have some reader awareness and some ideas about the demands of the writing situation. But they usually do not have a very rich conception of language, of linguistic possibilities, of the close relationship between language and technology and between language and reality Or, expressed in another way, they tend to think of language as a mirror of reality, not as part of reality-in fact, they think of it as something that makes us view reality in the way we do. This is a very strong reason for focusing on the importance of rhetoric in a classical sense. In their previous school training, Swedish university students usually have been given good training in presenting facts, in writing reports and articles, But they usually have not worked very hard with other linguistic expressions, such as arguing, making a point, or discussing. I feel that it is very important to help students develop their communicative repertoire in these ways. The training in discerning the rhetorics of technology that I advocate here is an important part of that teaching. Thus, I find it vital to broaden students’ perspectives and make them aware of the richness and situatedness of language, aware of how use of language structures our experiences of technologies and of reality (e.g., Suchman, 1987). The concept that I have found fruitful in this work is the concept of “interfaces,” to which I will return. But before that, the other question: Why deal with these issues in the writing class-why not in a philosophy class?’ The answer to this question is rather simple: It is in the writing class that we do our writing, or, as is the case for instructors, the place where we discuss the pieces our students have written.* Our writing tools have been computers. Even if they are not available in the classroom, computers are shared artifacts, very much linguistic artifacts (see, e.g., Sherry Turkle, 1984, on this issue), and we all have experiences with them. The “interface” concept I am advocating includes artifacts, the language in and surrounding them (such as displays, manuals, and advertisements), formal and informal teaching (Alty & Coombs, 1980; Coombs & Alty, 1980), and the environment where the things are used. In the writing class we have all this, or at least a shared experience of: computers, software with lots of linguistic and graphical messages, and teachers with both formal and informal instructional approaches. What objects, what artifacts, what situation could be more useful as a starting point in this discussion than the writing class? This is the environment where self-reflection is constantly on the agenda-about the students’ work, computer support, and language in use. We can also find material for
‘The relation between reality and language, and their mutual dependency, has been fruitfully discussed by, among others, Wittgenstein, Vygotsky, and Bakhtin. Pelle Ehn (1988), in his dissertation, Work-orientedDesign of Computer Artifacrs, uses Wittgenstein’s language play theory in a technological working context. *At Linkijping University, we do not yet teach writing in writing labs. We have some lessons in the computer labs about computer support for writing, but usually students write in labs, and we talk about their assignments in traditional classrooms. Another thing: Writing claw is not really an accurate term; we also have oral training in our courses. which are called “Practical Swedish” or “Oral and Written Communication.”
Interfacing Technology
305
discussions of a more obviously political kind, relating to interfacing issues, such as Selfe and Selfe (1994) suggested in “The Politics of the Interface: Power and Its Exercise in Electronic Contact Zones.” In the latter article they discuss, among other things, how different ethnic groups can feel invited into or excluded from the use of software applications as a result of the language and images used in the manuals. The article is an excellent example of how we might analyze the rhetorics of technology in practice. We will return to classrooms and some examples I have found useful from my own teaching experience and research, but first let us consider additional reasons for ourselves, as teachers and researchers, to develop this kind of thinking.
OPENING UP THE “BLACK BOX” OF TECHNOLOGY In this article I present some ways of looking at interfaces as rhetorics. The rhetorics of what meets the eye, the mind, and even the senses. My attempt is to contribute to unveiling the rhetorics in the artifacts, and 1 look forward to taking part in other such attempts. To choose technological artifacts is natural for me, as I have engineering students, but not only that: We live in very technology-oriented and technology-dependent societies, and we are every day the receivers of the rhetorics of technology There are good reasons for all of us to try to really see what is going on around us. To do this, we have to open up the “black boxes” of technology to take a good look at the design of things, the advertisements, the manuals, and the teaching. If we do not, we will not manage to link technology and text, to see beyond the surface. Seeing beyond the surface is what unveiling the rhetorics of interfaces to a great extent is about. If we do not, we will be caught in the existing traps of the social sciences, which I will briefly review now. Current research about humans and machines and the “meeting” of the two, the “encounter” or “interaction” between them, has had at least two clearly definable directions in the past few years. Humanistic-social science-oriented research has focused on “the human in the technology landscape” and shown our dependency on technology, systems, and structures. Human vulnerability in the “information society” or “technological society” has been highlighted from a number of perspectives. Humans and society have been the research objects; technology has, in this field of research, been given the role of being the “actor,” which causes consequences of a more or less unfortunate kind. The work of Finnish philosopher G. H. von Wright, who was a student of Wittgenstein’s, is a clear example of this kind of research. In book, Vetenskupen och jiirnuftet [Science and the mind], von Wright (1986/1988, p. 84) gave technology-or at least the technological society-the role of an “enemy,” ruining democracy and thus ruining society. Within this research field, technology as such, its shape and character, has not been focused to any great extent. In the article, “The Curious Case of the Vanishing Technology,” Graham Button (1993) criticized this kind of research: The general run of sociological interest in technology
is said to be less concerned with questions about the constitution and organization of technology than it is with using technology as a platform from which to observe the constitution and organization of the structural arrangements of society. (p. 10) Technology here serves the role of being a starting point for a discussion. This role is often rather obvious, as in the von Wright example above, but the technology as such is given no sharp outlines. The same could be argued against the program Social Construction of
MARDSJ~
306
Technology (SCOT). There the actors (producers and users) have a somewhat stronger role as the real “constructors” of technology and its (social) role, but technology does not appear very concretely in that field of research, either. (See Pinch, Bijker, and Hughes, 1987, for a summary of this research field’s major features.) The other main stream of research can be characterized as more firmly technology oriented, even though it takes user needs into consideration. The research field human-computer interaction (HCI) is an example. User-centered systems development is another example of such research and development work (as outlined by Norman & Draper, 1986). What I sometimes miss in that research field is the lack of context, of environment, of intentions and hopes, that is, the social, ideological, and cultural framework. The interface may, in that tradition, become synonymous with “graphic interface. ” and not with the “extended interface” that I advocate here.3
INTERFACES Technology, context, language-those are the key words in this dicussion so far. But how do they link to the interface concept I have mentioned? Interface is a somewhat confusing word right now, as it has been so frequently used as an equivalent of graphic interface among system developers, as already mentioned. It does, however, have both a longer history and a richer content than that. In The Science of the Artificial, Herbert Simon (1969) discussed the notion of an interface. He said that artifacts can be viewed as interfaces between the “content’‘-the substance and organization of-the artifact and its environment: “The peculiar properties of the artifact lie on the thin interface between the natural laws within it and the natural laws without” (p. 57). In this passage, Simon discussed artifacts and one specific aspect of those, the interface. The interface is what meets the eye: It is what meets the users. In this sense, we could argue that the interface is the artifact, as it defines the experience of the artifact and limits its use. This is, I think, a fruitful way of thinking of interfaces, but there are certainly others. Danish researcher Susanne Bodker (1991) pinpointed the pragmatic aspects of interfaces, that is, she looked at how interfaces may structure actions and relations. In her view, this is done in an obvious way: Users do what they are told on the screen. But the structuring can also have other dimenions. I discuss all these aspects later, but I want to clarify my own point of view: I think that we have to broaden the concept of the interface to include both the technology as such and the (more or less consciously manufactured) cultural, ideological, and social context of the designed object-or system. Context is probably too weak a word here; these structures are also embedded in the interface and can hardly be expressed as just being “outside” the interface. The necessity of interfaces is, of course, another issue of importance; should they be regarded as necessary “filters” between systems and users or as basically superfluous obstacles, which could be taken away if designs were good enough? Researchers like Donald A. Norman (19*%990)have argued that interfaces, particularly in the shape of 3There are of course exceptions. One of those fund for technical research and development), graphic interfaces and documentation. The main and technical communicators to cooperate with order to create better interfaces.
was the Delta project, funded by NUTEK (a Swedish research in which we dealt with an interface concept including both objective of the project was to find ways for system developers each other and with users during the development process in
Interfacing
307
Technology
written instructions, are a design failure. In Norman’s opinion, the directions on how to use technology can-and should-be built into the design. For example, doorknobs should be placed in such a way as to show how doors are to be opened, and the relation between lamps and their switches should be made clear by design. LEG0 is, according to Norman, the optimal design: Different items are designed in such a way that it is obvious how they are to be put together. He uses the concept of uffordances, that is, signs that are built into technologies to show their proper use. I do not, however, agree with Norman’s concept. Few technologies can “speak for themselves”; some kind of “guiding filter” is usually required. Few technologies, including LEG0 blocks, are simple at first glance. Ask parents who have tried to build an advanced LEG0 bike or automobile for their children!
THE PARTS OF AN INTERFACE But of what precisely does an interface consist? Broadly conceived, find most significant: l l
. .
these are the parts I
Design: the shape of the object (the “design” in a physical sense). Texts, documentation: advertisements, stickers and post-it notes put on machines, instructions, manuals,4 and other kinds of technical documentation. People: educators and other kinds of trainers; informal teachers such as “local experts” (Alty & Coombs, 1980).5 “Environmental” context: the working environment (home, office, factory, and so on) including factors like furniture position or working rooms that may affect contact between co-workers (see Mirel, 1987).
These environments may contribute to accessibility and comprehensibility-or the opposite. The relations between these parts are of vital importance in this analysis: Are the roles complementary, compensatory, or. . . ? For example, poor construction may lean heavily on a good manual; this would be the most typical case of compensatory relationships. The complementary role is more that of the “necessary filter”: adding and explaining that which cannot be made clear through design. The parts listed above are all visible and concrete, the more or less physical parts of interfaces. Many interface aspects are, however, less manifest and tangible, such as producers’ aims and users’ expectations. How these can be expressed, in obvious and subtle ways, is something to which I will return.
THE RHETORICS OF WRITING CLASSROOMS So, what artifacts, what kinds of rhetorics of technology, do we have access to in the classroom? There are, of course, many different possibilities, but I will mention just a few here. One that is close at hand in the classroom setting relates to the rhetorics of the computer screen and software. A couple of examples can illustrate that point: the trash can of the Apple computer screen and the pair of scissors in the Microsoft WORD
4By instructions I mean brief, action-oriented notes-or speech-whereas manuals are more comprehensive and often include description of the technology and motivational devices, apart from the instructive parts. ‘Alty and Coombs presented results from a study showing that most technology users are more likely to ask slightly more knowledgeable co-workers than risk losing face in front of a “real” expert.
308
application. These two icons are typical examples of rhetorical instruments that are designed to instruct and to make people comfortable when they meet something new in life, like new technologies. This is what I would call a motivational strategy. On the surface, both icons are pretty straightforward: They represent “here is where you put things you don’t need any longer” (trash can) and “when you click your mouse here, something will be cut away” (scissors). But there is more to it than meets the eye. The rhetorical strategy is the same in both cases: the use of recognition as the major instrument. The idea behind the choice is “what we recognize must be safe and OK.” There are reasons for using that instrument: The first is fighting the fear that most people feel in front of new technologies; the second is the goal of instruction, to show how to do it. (Issues related to fighting fear of new technologies have been discussed extensively by Johansson, 1988, and M&-dsj6, 1992; both studies, however, are in Swedish!) The choice of icons in both cases is certainly not random; on the contrary, they are both examples of the strategy of lineuriby: The new technology is made to bok like the old one, but still very new. The idea is to show new things as developed out of something familiar, safe, and well functioning. For both these examples, the icons are not entirely self-explanatory. Some support from other parts of the interface is necessary. It is not obvious, for example, that the trash can icon can be used to eject diskettes (that feels rather like throwing them away!); nor is it obvious what the scissors are good for or how they are to be used. The different parts of the interface often have complementary functions: A manual, colleague, or teacher may be needed to explain the icons. In Figure I, an example from a manual clearly shows the metaphorical idea of transition from then until now. These simple examples are enough to start a discussion about rhetorical strategies on a grander scale. In the next section, I will give more examples of this, from parts of society outside education. Klipp och kllstra Au flytta anvhde sax och klister.
en text
handlax
om au klippa och klistra, som om Du i
m55 i/t
u
,i
Urwipp (tillliillig lagfingsplats I datoms minne)
yqq\;
Dokument i f6nsfer
Uokumsnt ifijnster
FIGURE 1. AR transition.
a text block from pasting
example,
Moving
taken from
Q computer
text on the computer
screen
a piece of paper, temporarily
it in its new place.
software is equated storing
manual,
of the metaphorical
with the familiar
action
the block on a clipboard,
idea of
of cutting and then
out
Interfacing
309
Technology
1
S2 bar fungerar mikrovBgor
I
I
Radiovdgor I
Mikrovdgor
-I
lnfravagor b infrardtt /jus
Liusvdgor -I
syniigr
u/lnviolett
ljus
ljus
Elektromagnetiska v&or FIGURE
2. Graphic
logo mat
I mikrovagsugn
illustration [Cook
of technology in a microwave
THE RHETORICS
function
from
ICA Publishing
Company’s
(n.d.)
oven].
OF INTERFACES
Interface designs are always expressions-more or less conscious-of the producers’ views of the technology, the users, and the corporate, educational, or entertainment setting in which it will be used. Above all, interfaces are designed out of a desire to make people like and use technologies. The examples here show some attempts from a Swedish perspective to make people friendly toward technology. Motivational Strategies The desire to make us like and use technologies is, of course, a mainly commercial ambition, but it is more complex than that. From my own experience of interviewing technical writers, I found that they do, quite naturally, adapt to companies’ marketing ambitions, but that is not the whole story. They also expressed a strong personal interest in technologies, a personal pride in being able to make things better,6 and a feeling that the users’ lives would be improved if they used microwave ovens and word processors in an optimal kind of way. Commercial ambitions are exemplified by the motivational parts of technical documentation. These may consist of texts and pictures that aim to create a positive attitude toward the technology and that try to make the users interested in using it as optimally as possible. These motivational parts are, however, often not very visible; and, more often than not, they are rather subtle in shape.’ One example, from a microwave oven manual, can illustrate this point (Figure 2). At quick glance, the illustration shows the function of electromagnetic waves. But the inherent aim is of a motivational kind. The person responsible for inserting the picture said that the main purpose of the picture was to create a feeling of safety. The oven is located among safe and well-known devices such as a television set and a stove. The use of analogies was capitalized on, as was the explicit pointing out of similarities: % this case, the technologies were microwave ovens and word processors (M&&j& 1992; English summary by Mtidsjii, 1994). The writers had opportunities to give feedback to the designers and system developers, and they thus regarded themselves as part of design development as well as documentation development. ‘The matters of subtlety may, of course, be culturally bound. Swedish culture is often described as low-key and nonflashy.
310
MARDSJ~
Microwaves are one kind of electromagnetic energy. Ordinary day light and radio waves are two other. The only difference between these three types of energy is the length of the waves. . . Microwaves are reflected by metal in the same way as a ray of light is reflected by the surface of a mirror. (p. 3) 1 tie rhetorical strategies used in the texts that technical writers regarded as beiq part of the technologies were common approaches. The concept of linearity was also mentioned during the interviews: A microwave oven ideally should be regarded as something following the electrical stove, which came from the wooden stove. And still, the
microwave oven is presented as radically new! Quite a paradox. The reason for this approach is, of course, the realization that many technology users are afraid; there is insecurity and fear to be dealt with. Those kinds of messages are, thus, conveyed through design, through teachers, and through manuals. But fear is another motivating force in the case of microwaves (the fear of radiation) and also in other kinds of technologies when they are in the early stages of diffusion. Here is another example of the use of fear, in this case the fear of ruining one’s work-or the machine (from MicroPro’s, 1982, Mjcro~tur mailmerge User ~~~~~~ [my translation from the Swedish edition.): If you feel worried at the thought of working with a computer, this is quite unnecessary Going from a typewriter to a computer is probably not more challenging than going from a bicycIe to a car[ . . . JYou can make mistakes on a computer but as long as you do not lift it up and throw it out of the window, you cannot possibly damage it. (p. 8)
Images of Technology-Images of Users These examples come from manuals that present technologies that were not very well known to the users at the time. I have some examples from other technologies from similar, early stages of diffusion to illustrate how those and their users are represented: home preservation (Hemkonservering. Modern handbok i konservering av Biir, Frukt, Gr&saker [Home Preservation. Modern Handbook in Preservation of Berries, Fruits, Vegetables]); I have translated the Swedish text into English] Wezgta fGrlag, 18th edition, 1951) and faxmodems (COM.~t~t~on and Power Modem. User’s Monuul. PSI Integration, Inc., 1993).” It is interesting to see how the line of argument and rhetorical devices used
are to such a great extent bound to a certain time and culture. The underlying thought, the more or less explicit argument, in Home Pre~ervution is that preservation is rational, built on scientific ground, and should not be for pleasure. The underlying message in CU~st~tion is a bit less complex; the message is intended to convey an efficient tool, with the help of which the user will be able to do a better job. The idea of a technological “family” is also present here: “Welcome to the PSI family of fax/data modems, your tools for fast and efficient global communication.” The advantages of technologies, in the home preservation manual (Phillips Company), include the abilities to make rational household work: All the parts of the process/sterilization of food etc. are done in an almost ingeniously simple way through hermetic cooking, which is a usual way of doing home perservation. (P. 7) makes it possible for the efficient housewife (who is no doubt the receiver of this text!) to more or less save the country:
Moreover, this technology
8Thesetexts are part of a larger corpus of a recentIy started project “Swedish non-fiction over 250 years.” Researchers from Swedish universities are doing this as a joint effort, and my part in this is to give an historical view of Swedish technical manuals.
Interfacing Technology
311
It is also from an economic point of view extremely vital that the rich harvests of our country of fruit, vegetables, and maybe above all berries will be taken care of in a better way than before. This task is mainly a concern of the households, and perservation done
according to rational principles is a necessary tool in this. (p. 4) The faxmodem rhetorics do not deal with responsibilities and ideas of saving the country; instead, they present the technology in a “technical” way with fancy words. There is a description of all the technical possibilities included in the product along with facts and an ethos: FAXcilitate software drives all PSI modems: The Power ModemTM 100% internal fax/ data modems for the PowerBook, and the COMstationTM external fax/data modems for Macintosh computers. (p. 1)
The fancy words convey the ethos of the text; powerful, easy to use, high performance, reliability. The heavy use of those kinds of words is by no means original; it is part of the computer industry. In the book, Technobabble, an excellent analysis of computer jargon, John Barry (1993) made this comment about the fancy words: This penchant for “positioning” every item of the industry’s creation as the greatest thing since sliced silicon wafers permeates the language of the industry. The overuse of terms such as powerful and sophisticated and the myriad others that are bandied about with abandon has made them all but meaningless. (p. 94)
The user of the home preservation technologies is an efficient and demanding housewife, doing her part to save the country in the hard times after World War II, whereas the user of the faxmodem is a fast traveler and a quick worker or his or her way in the global village. The housewife is not really illustrated or photographed in the home preservation book; she is merely a couple of hands in the many instructional photos showing tools and processes. The “global villager,” on the other hand, is illustrated on the manual cover and looks suspiciously like a man (see Figure 3). That times are so different is obvious in how users are addressed. The housewife is regarded as knowledgeable; there are lots of scientific expressions in the text but hardly any gestures to make her feel comfortable about the new technology Many manuals from those times looked like this; it was the time of “social engineering” in Sweden, and everyone was supposed to contribute to the building of a new and better society.9 The tone in the faxmodem manual (Logistix, 1993) is also technical but not as didactic. Users are addressed directly, creating a joint arena. There is a competent you and a competent and friendly we, together conquering the world:” Whether you use your PSI modem to send and receive faxes, to access online services or to transfer data, we are confident that you will be pleased with the ease of use, high performance and reliability. [italics added] (p. 1) This is aimed at the professional and the competent; in order to be a responsible citizen.
it is not a plea for using the right tools
9This was in the beginning of the long social democratic em in Sweden, and the welfare state was being built. loThe Swedish official report on information technology, inspired by Al Gore and the Bangeman report, was actually called “Wings to Human Ability,” published in the fall of 1994. In the report, it was claimed that man, through the use of IT, would become not only a better worker but also wiser!-So, maybe the “global villager” is the responsible citizen of today..
MARDSJO
312
FIGURE
3.
The “global
Power Modem
User’s
villager”
on the cover of PSI Integration’s
(1993)
COMstation
and
Manual.
BACK TO THE CLASSROOM So far, I have advocated a view of language, of linguistic artifacts, as something that is inside technologies and is a vital part of interfaces. I have also stated that I find it important to focus on these issues in the writing classroom because this will help develop students’ thinking and their views of both language and technology But how do we do this? What examples can we use in this work? Here I will focus on linguistic artifacts because designs are harder to discuss in an article. To do this well, a workshop would be needed, with the option of working “hands on” in a classroom with computer facilities. For now, we will make do without such facilities. New technical developments have recently created new possibilities for talking about interfaces and rhetorics in fruitful ways. The concept, as formulated by Herbert Simon (1969), the “thin” interface “between [italics added] the natural laws within [the artifact] and the natural laws without” (p. 57), is no longer the only possible way to look at interfaces. Simon’s point of departure is something like, “Here am I and there is technology-there is a sharp line between us. ” This is no longer quite the truth, certainly not when we are talking about the technologies of the writing classroom.
Interfacing Technology
313
The popularity of the Internet, the World Wide Web, and new networking tools have changed the conception of interfaces. The task of designing a personal home page for Netscape is a very good one for seeing these new possibilities. The home page is the ultimate intertwining of the parts of the interface that I have talked about: the computer, the rhetorics of the written word and the images, and links to other sources of information. But more than that, writers, students, can actually see themselves in the technology Self-reflection may then begin in questions like “Who am I?” “Where am I?” “ What is my context?” “ In what way do I want to appear?” Then we are in the interface. The reasons for self-reflection, as well as the ground for rhetorical analysis, will increase. The interface is no longer a filter but something we can find ourselves embedded in. Maybe this will lead to new philosophical statements, and maybe we can develop Descartes’ classical phrase “I think, therefore I exist” into “I’m on the Net, therefore I exist! ” To conclude, and to be more concrete, I will give some suggestions about three classroom assignments that would be fruitful ways to develop the thinking I have advocated here. The first one has to do with design issues in rather a concrete way: the design of everyday things. The task is to ask students to think of and plan better designs and better instructions for some household technology like microwave ovens. They must analyze and plan the design and the information on displays and buttons. It is a creative task, requiring that language and technology work together for comprehensibility. The connections between the different parts of the task are focused on here, and it is a good way of putting technology into the classroom, and of linking everyday technologies and rhetorics. The second assignment is more of a training for the mind. It is more closely linked to writing classrooms and has to do with the rhetorics of the screen. The metaphors of the icons, like the trash can and the pair of scissors, are the focus of this task. Here students are asked to develop new, radical metaphors instead of these conventional-and sometimes conservative-ones. I imagine that there are many possible alternatives to the overused icons of today. Such thinking challenges the mind and requires doing the kind of work a technical communicator does: analyzing the task, analyzing the (in this case imagined) audience, and finding good and useful metaphors and good graphic formsicons. Cultivating cultural awareness is of course also part of this task, in that it must be tailored to a particular audience. The third assignment is to design a personal home page. I will develop this assignment in a bit more detail. The formulation of the task will, of course, depend on the situation, the group of students, and so on, but some common issues can be highlighted to provide a basis for a creative discussion. One issue is that of restrictions and choices: The technologically possible is not the same as the rhetorically desirable. My own experience of designing a home page comes from a course on computers in writing intensive classrooms at Michigan Technological University in the summer of 1995. In my work there I found the conflict challenging. In the design process, with full access to computers, scanners, pictures, and words as tools, it is very easy to be occupied-and driven-by what is technically possible. The desire to make an impression by using all available bells and whistles is compelling. But, and this is hard to accept as a student, the rhetorically desirable may well be something that is rather low-key and sparse in words and illustrations. Another issue is that of rhetorical strategies, in this case contexts and images. From my own experience, I found that it most difficult to shape and create the self-image, to represent one’s context on the home page. These questions arose:
314
.
MARDSJO
As what, as who, do I want to appear? What features do I want to highlight, and what features do I want to suppress? What context do I want to stress? Will I appear as a student, as a part of a course, or in relation to my interests outside of the school situation? What kinds of context will give me status, and what kinds will give me a negative profile?
All these questions are common in the setting of a rhetorical text of any kind, but the format of the home page, the technical possibilities-and the potentially large audiencemake these questions even more critical than they usually are. The ethics of the home page is another aspect of the rhetorics. What is so widely distributed will, of course, have to be the object of some ethical considerations. There are already some “netiquette” rules on the Net, and new conventions are on their way. These conventions deal with Internet communication in general, but they should be considered when students design their home pages. One example is “Net User Guidelines and Netiquette” (Rinaldi, 1994): Cite all quotes,
references
and sources and respect copyright and license agreements.
[...I Be careful when using sarcasm and humor. Without face to face communication may be viewed as criticism.
your joke
The first piece of advice deals with the credibility of the sender, the second with the relation between sender and receiver. Both aspects are important ethical issues, even though they may not seem so at first glance. The first piece of advice is something we take for granted in all matters of publication, but which has not been so obvious on the Net. It needs to be stressed. The other has to do with politeness, with courtesy. That is an important aspect of the design of any interface, not just in face-to-face communication. Ways of addressing readers, implicitly or explicitly, must be seriously considered. These aspects are just a couple of examples of-in a wide sense-ethical issues. There are, of course, other, more obviously political aspects to consider, such as issues related to gender, race, and other differences. These are just some things to think of in the task of designing a home page, and the list can easily be made longer. This and the other assignments have the same goal: to sharpen students’ minds and to develop their creative interface thinking. There are most certainly other options as well, but each teacher must decide what is appropriate in his or her own writing classroom! Karin M&rdsjti is a senior lecturer at the Department of Tema, Technology and Social Change, Linkiiping University. She is the director of the Technical Communication program at the technical faculty. Her e-mail address is.
REFERENCES Alty, J. L., & Coombs, M. J. (1980). Face-to-face guidance of university computer users--I. services. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 12, 389-405. Barry, John A. (1993). Technobubble. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Biidker, Susanne. (1991). Through the interface. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
A study of advisory
Interfacing Technology
315
Button, Graham. (Ed.). (1993). The curious case of the vanishing technology. In Graham Button (Ed.), Technology in working order. Studies of work, interucrion and technology (pp. 10-28). London: Routledge. Coombs, M.J., & Alty, J. L. (1980). Face-to-face guidance of university computer users-II. Characterising advisory interactions. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 12, 407-429. Ehn, Pelle. (1988). Work-oriented design of computer artifacts. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Hemkonservering. Modern handbok i konservering av B&r, Frukt, GrZinsaker [Home preservation. Modern handbook in preservation of berries, fruits, vegetables] (18th ed.). (1951). Stockholm: We&a fdrlag. ICA Publishing Co. (n.d.). Laga mar i mikrovagsugn [Cook in a microwave oven]. Vasteras, Sweden: Author. Johansson, Birgitta. (1988). Ny teknik och gamla vanor En s&die om mikrovagsugnens introduktion [New technologies and old habits. A study of the introduction of microwave ovens] (Linkijping Studies in Arts and Science No. 28). LinkGping, Sweden: LinkBping University. MicroPro. (1982). MicroStar MAILMERGE (3rd ed.). Author. Mirel, Barbara. (1987). Designing field research in technical communication: Usability testing for in-house user documentation. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication. 17(4), 347-354. Mtidsjii, Karin. (1992). Miinniska, text, teknik. Tekniska handbiicker som kommmunikarionsmedel [Man, text, technology. Technical manuals as means of communication] (Linkiiping Studies in Arts and Science No. 82). LinkBping, Sweden: Linkaping University. MZudsjii, Karin. (1994). Man-text-technology: Technical manuals as means of communication. In Michael Steehouder, Care1 Jansen, Pieter van der Poort, & Ron Verheijen (Eds.), Quality of rechnical documenrarion (pp. 185-200). Utrecht: Rodopi. Norman, Donald A. (1990). The design of everyday things. New York: Basic Books. (Original work published 1988) Norman, Donald A., & Draper, Stephen W. (Eds.). (1986). User centered system design. New perspectives on human-computer interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Philips Company. (n.d.; circa 1988). Philips manual for microwave ovens. (version 2). Stockholm: Author. Pinch, Trevor; Bijker, Wiebe E., & Hughes, Thomas. (Eds.). (1987). The social consfrucfion of technological sysfems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. PSI Integration, Inc. (1993). COMsfation and power modem. User’s manual. Author. Rinaldi, H. Arlene. (1994). The net: User guidelines and netiquette. [accessed 1995, Fall]. Selfe, Cynthia L., & Selfe, Richard J. (1994). The politics of the interface: Power and its exercise in electronic contact zones. College Composition and Communication, 45(4): 480-504. Simon, Herbert. (1969). The science of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Suchman, Lucy. (1987). Plans and situated actions. New York: Cambridge University Press. Turkle, Sherry. (1984). The second self Computers and the human spirit. London: Granada. Wings to human ability. (1994). Swedish official report [in English]. Stockholm: Liber. von Wright, Georg H. (1988). V&fen&pen och fiirnuftet [Science and the mind]. Stockholm: Bonnier Fakta. (Original work published 1986)
13, 303-315 (1996)
Interfacing Technology KARIN MARDSJ~ Linkiiping University
Language and technologies are often regarded as two separate issues, issues with very little in common. Language is often regarded as something that “mirrors” reality, that is, the technology of the material world. In this article, another view of language is advocated The interface (of technologies) is what meets the user, through the notion of “interfaces.” and it includes both technology and linguistic devices of different kinds. This extended interface concept is very useful in the classroom because it may help the writing student adopt a richer view of longuage and o more complex understanding of the relation between language and technology.
classrooms
context
culture
rhetorics
INTERFACES
home pages
interfaces
technology
AND CLASSROOMS
In writing classes, we meet students who have different goals, and we have quite a few goals for them. We want them to become more comfortable and skilled as writers and we want to help them feel more confident in their use of language as a tool. As part of that goal we want them to learn how to use computers for several different reasons: as a means of communication (e-mail), as support for their writing processes (word processing), and in their search for information (World Wide Web, databases). We also want to help students develop their critical thinking, and one particular aspect of that is the point of this article: I have through several years of teaching technical communication to engineering students found it more and more important to help students view language in a wider sense, view language as part of, and embedded in, technology. Or, put the other way around, I have tried to help them see technology and our experience with it as embedded in language, as linguistic artifacts of different kinds. Language is not just a “product” on the finished pages of a paper or a report, something that is submitted to some formal demands and some ambitions concerning comprehensibility. It is in the technology, something that can help us use technology, something that can guide-give perspective to-our ways of viewing technology. I think of language as both a tool (for communication and writing) and an artifact, a very much designed artifact that we meet inside technologies, in the “interface.” The first view, of language as a tool, is rather easy to share with students, as it is analogous with their view of technology, of computers, and of other things. But the second view, of
I am grateful to Bo Dahlbom, Department of Informatics at Giiteborg University, for the fruitful discussions we have had about the concept of interfaces. Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to Karin Mtidsjii, Department of Technology and Social Change, LinkGping University, § 581 83 Linkaping, Sweden. e-mail:
303
304
MARDSJCI
language as a designed artifact, part of society, is usually a bit more difficult for students to understand. Why is it important to share this view with students? And why is the writing class a natural place for doing this? These are the questions I seek to answer. To begin with, I must admit that there are no strict boundaries between these two views on language: The tool view is sort of the underlying concept in both cases. But our students tend to think of language as a tool in a too technical sense, and they easily tend to think: “If I arrange this document according to the rules of document composition and find some nice fonts for the printout, then the text will be fine.” I do not want to be unfair; students do have some reader awareness and some ideas about the demands of the writing situation. But they usually do not have a very rich conception of language, of linguistic possibilities, of the close relationship between language and technology and between language and reality Or, expressed in another way, they tend to think of language as a mirror of reality, not as part of reality-in fact, they think of it as something that makes us view reality in the way we do. This is a very strong reason for focusing on the importance of rhetoric in a classical sense. In their previous school training, Swedish university students usually have been given good training in presenting facts, in writing reports and articles, But they usually have not worked very hard with other linguistic expressions, such as arguing, making a point, or discussing. I feel that it is very important to help students develop their communicative repertoire in these ways. The training in discerning the rhetorics of technology that I advocate here is an important part of that teaching. Thus, I find it vital to broaden students’ perspectives and make them aware of the richness and situatedness of language, aware of how use of language structures our experiences of technologies and of reality (e.g., Suchman, 1987). The concept that I have found fruitful in this work is the concept of “interfaces,” to which I will return. But before that, the other question: Why deal with these issues in the writing class-why not in a philosophy class?’ The answer to this question is rather simple: It is in the writing class that we do our writing, or, as is the case for instructors, the place where we discuss the pieces our students have written.* Our writing tools have been computers. Even if they are not available in the classroom, computers are shared artifacts, very much linguistic artifacts (see, e.g., Sherry Turkle, 1984, on this issue), and we all have experiences with them. The “interface” concept I am advocating includes artifacts, the language in and surrounding them (such as displays, manuals, and advertisements), formal and informal teaching (Alty & Coombs, 1980; Coombs & Alty, 1980), and the environment where the things are used. In the writing class we have all this, or at least a shared experience of: computers, software with lots of linguistic and graphical messages, and teachers with both formal and informal instructional approaches. What objects, what artifacts, what situation could be more useful as a starting point in this discussion than the writing class? This is the environment where self-reflection is constantly on the agenda-about the students’ work, computer support, and language in use. We can also find material for
‘The relation between reality and language, and their mutual dependency, has been fruitfully discussed by, among others, Wittgenstein, Vygotsky, and Bakhtin. Pelle Ehn (1988), in his dissertation, Work-orientedDesign of Computer Artifacrs, uses Wittgenstein’s language play theory in a technological working context. *At Linkijping University, we do not yet teach writing in writing labs. We have some lessons in the computer labs about computer support for writing, but usually students write in labs, and we talk about their assignments in traditional classrooms. Another thing: Writing claw is not really an accurate term; we also have oral training in our courses. which are called “Practical Swedish” or “Oral and Written Communication.”
Interfacing Technology
305
discussions of a more obviously political kind, relating to interfacing issues, such as Selfe and Selfe (1994) suggested in “The Politics of the Interface: Power and Its Exercise in Electronic Contact Zones.” In the latter article they discuss, among other things, how different ethnic groups can feel invited into or excluded from the use of software applications as a result of the language and images used in the manuals. The article is an excellent example of how we might analyze the rhetorics of technology in practice. We will return to classrooms and some examples I have found useful from my own teaching experience and research, but first let us consider additional reasons for ourselves, as teachers and researchers, to develop this kind of thinking.
OPENING UP THE “BLACK BOX” OF TECHNOLOGY In this article I present some ways of looking at interfaces as rhetorics. The rhetorics of what meets the eye, the mind, and even the senses. My attempt is to contribute to unveiling the rhetorics in the artifacts, and 1 look forward to taking part in other such attempts. To choose technological artifacts is natural for me, as I have engineering students, but not only that: We live in very technology-oriented and technology-dependent societies, and we are every day the receivers of the rhetorics of technology There are good reasons for all of us to try to really see what is going on around us. To do this, we have to open up the “black boxes” of technology to take a good look at the design of things, the advertisements, the manuals, and the teaching. If we do not, we will not manage to link technology and text, to see beyond the surface. Seeing beyond the surface is what unveiling the rhetorics of interfaces to a great extent is about. If we do not, we will be caught in the existing traps of the social sciences, which I will briefly review now. Current research about humans and machines and the “meeting” of the two, the “encounter” or “interaction” between them, has had at least two clearly definable directions in the past few years. Humanistic-social science-oriented research has focused on “the human in the technology landscape” and shown our dependency on technology, systems, and structures. Human vulnerability in the “information society” or “technological society” has been highlighted from a number of perspectives. Humans and society have been the research objects; technology has, in this field of research, been given the role of being the “actor,” which causes consequences of a more or less unfortunate kind. The work of Finnish philosopher G. H. von Wright, who was a student of Wittgenstein’s, is a clear example of this kind of research. In book, Vetenskupen och jiirnuftet [Science and the mind], von Wright (1986/1988, p. 84) gave technology-or at least the technological society-the role of an “enemy,” ruining democracy and thus ruining society. Within this research field, technology as such, its shape and character, has not been focused to any great extent. In the article, “The Curious Case of the Vanishing Technology,” Graham Button (1993) criticized this kind of research: The general run of sociological interest in technology
is said to be less concerned with questions about the constitution and organization of technology than it is with using technology as a platform from which to observe the constitution and organization of the structural arrangements of society. (p. 10) Technology here serves the role of being a starting point for a discussion. This role is often rather obvious, as in the von Wright example above, but the technology as such is given no sharp outlines. The same could be argued against the program Social Construction of
MARDSJ~
306
Technology (SCOT). There the actors (producers and users) have a somewhat stronger role as the real “constructors” of technology and its (social) role, but technology does not appear very concretely in that field of research, either. (See Pinch, Bijker, and Hughes, 1987, for a summary of this research field’s major features.) The other main stream of research can be characterized as more firmly technology oriented, even though it takes user needs into consideration. The research field human-computer interaction (HCI) is an example. User-centered systems development is another example of such research and development work (as outlined by Norman & Draper, 1986). What I sometimes miss in that research field is the lack of context, of environment, of intentions and hopes, that is, the social, ideological, and cultural framework. The interface may, in that tradition, become synonymous with “graphic interface. ” and not with the “extended interface” that I advocate here.3
INTERFACES Technology, context, language-those are the key words in this dicussion so far. But how do they link to the interface concept I have mentioned? Interface is a somewhat confusing word right now, as it has been so frequently used as an equivalent of graphic interface among system developers, as already mentioned. It does, however, have both a longer history and a richer content than that. In The Science of the Artificial, Herbert Simon (1969) discussed the notion of an interface. He said that artifacts can be viewed as interfaces between the “content’‘-the substance and organization of-the artifact and its environment: “The peculiar properties of the artifact lie on the thin interface between the natural laws within it and the natural laws without” (p. 57). In this passage, Simon discussed artifacts and one specific aspect of those, the interface. The interface is what meets the eye: It is what meets the users. In this sense, we could argue that the interface is the artifact, as it defines the experience of the artifact and limits its use. This is, I think, a fruitful way of thinking of interfaces, but there are certainly others. Danish researcher Susanne Bodker (1991) pinpointed the pragmatic aspects of interfaces, that is, she looked at how interfaces may structure actions and relations. In her view, this is done in an obvious way: Users do what they are told on the screen. But the structuring can also have other dimenions. I discuss all these aspects later, but I want to clarify my own point of view: I think that we have to broaden the concept of the interface to include both the technology as such and the (more or less consciously manufactured) cultural, ideological, and social context of the designed object-or system. Context is probably too weak a word here; these structures are also embedded in the interface and can hardly be expressed as just being “outside” the interface. The necessity of interfaces is, of course, another issue of importance; should they be regarded as necessary “filters” between systems and users or as basically superfluous obstacles, which could be taken away if designs were good enough? Researchers like Donald A. Norman (19*%990)have argued that interfaces, particularly in the shape of 3There are of course exceptions. One of those fund for technical research and development), graphic interfaces and documentation. The main and technical communicators to cooperate with order to create better interfaces.
was the Delta project, funded by NUTEK (a Swedish research in which we dealt with an interface concept including both objective of the project was to find ways for system developers each other and with users during the development process in
Interfacing
307
Technology
written instructions, are a design failure. In Norman’s opinion, the directions on how to use technology can-and should-be built into the design. For example, doorknobs should be placed in such a way as to show how doors are to be opened, and the relation between lamps and their switches should be made clear by design. LEG0 is, according to Norman, the optimal design: Different items are designed in such a way that it is obvious how they are to be put together. He uses the concept of uffordances, that is, signs that are built into technologies to show their proper use. I do not, however, agree with Norman’s concept. Few technologies can “speak for themselves”; some kind of “guiding filter” is usually required. Few technologies, including LEG0 blocks, are simple at first glance. Ask parents who have tried to build an advanced LEG0 bike or automobile for their children!
THE PARTS OF AN INTERFACE But of what precisely does an interface consist? Broadly conceived, find most significant: l l
. .
these are the parts I
Design: the shape of the object (the “design” in a physical sense). Texts, documentation: advertisements, stickers and post-it notes put on machines, instructions, manuals,4 and other kinds of technical documentation. People: educators and other kinds of trainers; informal teachers such as “local experts” (Alty & Coombs, 1980).5 “Environmental” context: the working environment (home, office, factory, and so on) including factors like furniture position or working rooms that may affect contact between co-workers (see Mirel, 1987).
These environments may contribute to accessibility and comprehensibility-or the opposite. The relations between these parts are of vital importance in this analysis: Are the roles complementary, compensatory, or. . . ? For example, poor construction may lean heavily on a good manual; this would be the most typical case of compensatory relationships. The complementary role is more that of the “necessary filter”: adding and explaining that which cannot be made clear through design. The parts listed above are all visible and concrete, the more or less physical parts of interfaces. Many interface aspects are, however, less manifest and tangible, such as producers’ aims and users’ expectations. How these can be expressed, in obvious and subtle ways, is something to which I will return.
THE RHETORICS OF WRITING CLASSROOMS So, what artifacts, what kinds of rhetorics of technology, do we have access to in the classroom? There are, of course, many different possibilities, but I will mention just a few here. One that is close at hand in the classroom setting relates to the rhetorics of the computer screen and software. A couple of examples can illustrate that point: the trash can of the Apple computer screen and the pair of scissors in the Microsoft WORD
4By instructions I mean brief, action-oriented notes-or speech-whereas manuals are more comprehensive and often include description of the technology and motivational devices, apart from the instructive parts. ‘Alty and Coombs presented results from a study showing that most technology users are more likely to ask slightly more knowledgeable co-workers than risk losing face in front of a “real” expert.
308
application. These two icons are typical examples of rhetorical instruments that are designed to instruct and to make people comfortable when they meet something new in life, like new technologies. This is what I would call a motivational strategy. On the surface, both icons are pretty straightforward: They represent “here is where you put things you don’t need any longer” (trash can) and “when you click your mouse here, something will be cut away” (scissors). But there is more to it than meets the eye. The rhetorical strategy is the same in both cases: the use of recognition as the major instrument. The idea behind the choice is “what we recognize must be safe and OK.” There are reasons for using that instrument: The first is fighting the fear that most people feel in front of new technologies; the second is the goal of instruction, to show how to do it. (Issues related to fighting fear of new technologies have been discussed extensively by Johansson, 1988, and M&-dsj6, 1992; both studies, however, are in Swedish!) The choice of icons in both cases is certainly not random; on the contrary, they are both examples of the strategy of lineuriby: The new technology is made to bok like the old one, but still very new. The idea is to show new things as developed out of something familiar, safe, and well functioning. For both these examples, the icons are not entirely self-explanatory. Some support from other parts of the interface is necessary. It is not obvious, for example, that the trash can icon can be used to eject diskettes (that feels rather like throwing them away!); nor is it obvious what the scissors are good for or how they are to be used. The different parts of the interface often have complementary functions: A manual, colleague, or teacher may be needed to explain the icons. In Figure I, an example from a manual clearly shows the metaphorical idea of transition from then until now. These simple examples are enough to start a discussion about rhetorical strategies on a grander scale. In the next section, I will give more examples of this, from parts of society outside education. Klipp och kllstra Au flytta anvhde sax och klister.
en text
handlax
om au klippa och klistra, som om Du i
m55 i/t
u
,i
Urwipp (tillliillig lagfingsplats I datoms minne)
yqq\;
Dokument i f6nsfer
Uokumsnt ifijnster
FIGURE 1. AR transition.
a text block from pasting
example,
Moving
taken from
Q computer
text on the computer
screen
a piece of paper, temporarily
it in its new place.
software is equated storing
manual,
of the metaphorical
with the familiar
action
the block on a clipboard,
idea of
of cutting and then
out
Interfacing
309
Technology
1
S2 bar fungerar mikrovBgor
I
I
Radiovdgor I
Mikrovdgor
-I
lnfravagor b infrardtt /jus
Liusvdgor -I
syniigr
u/lnviolett
ljus
ljus
Elektromagnetiska v&or FIGURE
2. Graphic
logo mat
I mikrovagsugn
illustration [Cook
of technology in a microwave
THE RHETORICS
function
from
ICA Publishing
Company’s
(n.d.)
oven].
OF INTERFACES
Interface designs are always expressions-more or less conscious-of the producers’ views of the technology, the users, and the corporate, educational, or entertainment setting in which it will be used. Above all, interfaces are designed out of a desire to make people like and use technologies. The examples here show some attempts from a Swedish perspective to make people friendly toward technology. Motivational Strategies The desire to make us like and use technologies is, of course, a mainly commercial ambition, but it is more complex than that. From my own experience of interviewing technical writers, I found that they do, quite naturally, adapt to companies’ marketing ambitions, but that is not the whole story. They also expressed a strong personal interest in technologies, a personal pride in being able to make things better,6 and a feeling that the users’ lives would be improved if they used microwave ovens and word processors in an optimal kind of way. Commercial ambitions are exemplified by the motivational parts of technical documentation. These may consist of texts and pictures that aim to create a positive attitude toward the technology and that try to make the users interested in using it as optimally as possible. These motivational parts are, however, often not very visible; and, more often than not, they are rather subtle in shape.’ One example, from a microwave oven manual, can illustrate this point (Figure 2). At quick glance, the illustration shows the function of electromagnetic waves. But the inherent aim is of a motivational kind. The person responsible for inserting the picture said that the main purpose of the picture was to create a feeling of safety. The oven is located among safe and well-known devices such as a television set and a stove. The use of analogies was capitalized on, as was the explicit pointing out of similarities: % this case, the technologies were microwave ovens and word processors (M&&j& 1992; English summary by Mtidsjii, 1994). The writers had opportunities to give feedback to the designers and system developers, and they thus regarded themselves as part of design development as well as documentation development. ‘The matters of subtlety may, of course, be culturally bound. Swedish culture is often described as low-key and nonflashy.
310
MARDSJ~
Microwaves are one kind of electromagnetic energy. Ordinary day light and radio waves are two other. The only difference between these three types of energy is the length of the waves. . . Microwaves are reflected by metal in the same way as a ray of light is reflected by the surface of a mirror. (p. 3) 1 tie rhetorical strategies used in the texts that technical writers regarded as beiq part of the technologies were common approaches. The concept of linearity was also mentioned during the interviews: A microwave oven ideally should be regarded as something following the electrical stove, which came from the wooden stove. And still, the
microwave oven is presented as radically new! Quite a paradox. The reason for this approach is, of course, the realization that many technology users are afraid; there is insecurity and fear to be dealt with. Those kinds of messages are, thus, conveyed through design, through teachers, and through manuals. But fear is another motivating force in the case of microwaves (the fear of radiation) and also in other kinds of technologies when they are in the early stages of diffusion. Here is another example of the use of fear, in this case the fear of ruining one’s work-or the machine (from MicroPro’s, 1982, Mjcro~tur mailmerge User ~~~~~~ [my translation from the Swedish edition.): If you feel worried at the thought of working with a computer, this is quite unnecessary Going from a typewriter to a computer is probably not more challenging than going from a bicycIe to a car[ . . . JYou can make mistakes on a computer but as long as you do not lift it up and throw it out of the window, you cannot possibly damage it. (p. 8)
Images of Technology-Images of Users These examples come from manuals that present technologies that were not very well known to the users at the time. I have some examples from other technologies from similar, early stages of diffusion to illustrate how those and their users are represented: home preservation (Hemkonservering. Modern handbok i konservering av Biir, Frukt, Gr&saker [Home Preservation. Modern Handbook in Preservation of Berries, Fruits, Vegetables]); I have translated the Swedish text into English] Wezgta fGrlag, 18th edition, 1951) and faxmodems (COM.~t~t~on and Power Modem. User’s Monuul. PSI Integration, Inc., 1993).” It is interesting to see how the line of argument and rhetorical devices used
are to such a great extent bound to a certain time and culture. The underlying thought, the more or less explicit argument, in Home Pre~ervution is that preservation is rational, built on scientific ground, and should not be for pleasure. The underlying message in CU~st~tion is a bit less complex; the message is intended to convey an efficient tool, with the help of which the user will be able to do a better job. The idea of a technological “family” is also present here: “Welcome to the PSI family of fax/data modems, your tools for fast and efficient global communication.” The advantages of technologies, in the home preservation manual (Phillips Company), include the abilities to make rational household work: All the parts of the process/sterilization of food etc. are done in an almost ingeniously simple way through hermetic cooking, which is a usual way of doing home perservation. (P. 7) makes it possible for the efficient housewife (who is no doubt the receiver of this text!) to more or less save the country:
Moreover, this technology
8Thesetexts are part of a larger corpus of a recentIy started project “Swedish non-fiction over 250 years.” Researchers from Swedish universities are doing this as a joint effort, and my part in this is to give an historical view of Swedish technical manuals.
Interfacing Technology
311
It is also from an economic point of view extremely vital that the rich harvests of our country of fruit, vegetables, and maybe above all berries will be taken care of in a better way than before. This task is mainly a concern of the households, and perservation done
according to rational principles is a necessary tool in this. (p. 4) The faxmodem rhetorics do not deal with responsibilities and ideas of saving the country; instead, they present the technology in a “technical” way with fancy words. There is a description of all the technical possibilities included in the product along with facts and an ethos: FAXcilitate software drives all PSI modems: The Power ModemTM 100% internal fax/ data modems for the PowerBook, and the COMstationTM external fax/data modems for Macintosh computers. (p. 1)
The fancy words convey the ethos of the text; powerful, easy to use, high performance, reliability. The heavy use of those kinds of words is by no means original; it is part of the computer industry. In the book, Technobabble, an excellent analysis of computer jargon, John Barry (1993) made this comment about the fancy words: This penchant for “positioning” every item of the industry’s creation as the greatest thing since sliced silicon wafers permeates the language of the industry. The overuse of terms such as powerful and sophisticated and the myriad others that are bandied about with abandon has made them all but meaningless. (p. 94)
The user of the home preservation technologies is an efficient and demanding housewife, doing her part to save the country in the hard times after World War II, whereas the user of the faxmodem is a fast traveler and a quick worker or his or her way in the global village. The housewife is not really illustrated or photographed in the home preservation book; she is merely a couple of hands in the many instructional photos showing tools and processes. The “global villager,” on the other hand, is illustrated on the manual cover and looks suspiciously like a man (see Figure 3). That times are so different is obvious in how users are addressed. The housewife is regarded as knowledgeable; there are lots of scientific expressions in the text but hardly any gestures to make her feel comfortable about the new technology Many manuals from those times looked like this; it was the time of “social engineering” in Sweden, and everyone was supposed to contribute to the building of a new and better society.9 The tone in the faxmodem manual (Logistix, 1993) is also technical but not as didactic. Users are addressed directly, creating a joint arena. There is a competent you and a competent and friendly we, together conquering the world:” Whether you use your PSI modem to send and receive faxes, to access online services or to transfer data, we are confident that you will be pleased with the ease of use, high performance and reliability. [italics added] (p. 1) This is aimed at the professional and the competent; in order to be a responsible citizen.
it is not a plea for using the right tools
9This was in the beginning of the long social democratic em in Sweden, and the welfare state was being built. loThe Swedish official report on information technology, inspired by Al Gore and the Bangeman report, was actually called “Wings to Human Ability,” published in the fall of 1994. In the report, it was claimed that man, through the use of IT, would become not only a better worker but also wiser!-So, maybe the “global villager” is the responsible citizen of today..
MARDSJO
312
FIGURE
3.
The “global
Power Modem
User’s
villager”
on the cover of PSI Integration’s
(1993)
COMstation
and
Manual.
BACK TO THE CLASSROOM So far, I have advocated a view of language, of linguistic artifacts, as something that is inside technologies and is a vital part of interfaces. I have also stated that I find it important to focus on these issues in the writing classroom because this will help develop students’ thinking and their views of both language and technology But how do we do this? What examples can we use in this work? Here I will focus on linguistic artifacts because designs are harder to discuss in an article. To do this well, a workshop would be needed, with the option of working “hands on” in a classroom with computer facilities. For now, we will make do without such facilities. New technical developments have recently created new possibilities for talking about interfaces and rhetorics in fruitful ways. The concept, as formulated by Herbert Simon (1969), the “thin” interface “between [italics added] the natural laws within [the artifact] and the natural laws without” (p. 57), is no longer the only possible way to look at interfaces. Simon’s point of departure is something like, “Here am I and there is technology-there is a sharp line between us. ” This is no longer quite the truth, certainly not when we are talking about the technologies of the writing classroom.
Interfacing Technology
313
The popularity of the Internet, the World Wide Web, and new networking tools have changed the conception of interfaces. The task of designing a personal home page for Netscape is a very good one for seeing these new possibilities. The home page is the ultimate intertwining of the parts of the interface that I have talked about: the computer, the rhetorics of the written word and the images, and links to other sources of information. But more than that, writers, students, can actually see themselves in the technology Self-reflection may then begin in questions like “Who am I?” “Where am I?” “ What is my context?” “ In what way do I want to appear?” Then we are in the interface. The reasons for self-reflection, as well as the ground for rhetorical analysis, will increase. The interface is no longer a filter but something we can find ourselves embedded in. Maybe this will lead to new philosophical statements, and maybe we can develop Descartes’ classical phrase “I think, therefore I exist” into “I’m on the Net, therefore I exist! ” To conclude, and to be more concrete, I will give some suggestions about three classroom assignments that would be fruitful ways to develop the thinking I have advocated here. The first one has to do with design issues in rather a concrete way: the design of everyday things. The task is to ask students to think of and plan better designs and better instructions for some household technology like microwave ovens. They must analyze and plan the design and the information on displays and buttons. It is a creative task, requiring that language and technology work together for comprehensibility. The connections between the different parts of the task are focused on here, and it is a good way of putting technology into the classroom, and of linking everyday technologies and rhetorics. The second assignment is more of a training for the mind. It is more closely linked to writing classrooms and has to do with the rhetorics of the screen. The metaphors of the icons, like the trash can and the pair of scissors, are the focus of this task. Here students are asked to develop new, radical metaphors instead of these conventional-and sometimes conservative-ones. I imagine that there are many possible alternatives to the overused icons of today. Such thinking challenges the mind and requires doing the kind of work a technical communicator does: analyzing the task, analyzing the (in this case imagined) audience, and finding good and useful metaphors and good graphic formsicons. Cultivating cultural awareness is of course also part of this task, in that it must be tailored to a particular audience. The third assignment is to design a personal home page. I will develop this assignment in a bit more detail. The formulation of the task will, of course, depend on the situation, the group of students, and so on, but some common issues can be highlighted to provide a basis for a creative discussion. One issue is that of restrictions and choices: The technologically possible is not the same as the rhetorically desirable. My own experience of designing a home page comes from a course on computers in writing intensive classrooms at Michigan Technological University in the summer of 1995. In my work there I found the conflict challenging. In the design process, with full access to computers, scanners, pictures, and words as tools, it is very easy to be occupied-and driven-by what is technically possible. The desire to make an impression by using all available bells and whistles is compelling. But, and this is hard to accept as a student, the rhetorically desirable may well be something that is rather low-key and sparse in words and illustrations. Another issue is that of rhetorical strategies, in this case contexts and images. From my own experience, I found that it most difficult to shape and create the self-image, to represent one’s context on the home page. These questions arose:
314
.
MARDSJO
As what, as who, do I want to appear? What features do I want to highlight, and what features do I want to suppress? What context do I want to stress? Will I appear as a student, as a part of a course, or in relation to my interests outside of the school situation? What kinds of context will give me status, and what kinds will give me a negative profile?
All these questions are common in the setting of a rhetorical text of any kind, but the format of the home page, the technical possibilities-and the potentially large audiencemake these questions even more critical than they usually are. The ethics of the home page is another aspect of the rhetorics. What is so widely distributed will, of course, have to be the object of some ethical considerations. There are already some “netiquette” rules on the Net, and new conventions are on their way. These conventions deal with Internet communication in general, but they should be considered when students design their home pages. One example is “Net User Guidelines and Netiquette” (Rinaldi, 1994): Cite all quotes,
references
and sources and respect copyright and license agreements.
[...I Be careful when using sarcasm and humor. Without face to face communication may be viewed as criticism.
your joke
The first piece of advice deals with the credibility of the sender, the second with the relation between sender and receiver. Both aspects are important ethical issues, even though they may not seem so at first glance. The first piece of advice is something we take for granted in all matters of publication, but which has not been so obvious on the Net. It needs to be stressed. The other has to do with politeness, with courtesy. That is an important aspect of the design of any interface, not just in face-to-face communication. Ways of addressing readers, implicitly or explicitly, must be seriously considered. These aspects are just a couple of examples of-in a wide sense-ethical issues. There are, of course, other, more obviously political aspects to consider, such as issues related to gender, race, and other differences. These are just some things to think of in the task of designing a home page, and the list can easily be made longer. This and the other assignments have the same goal: to sharpen students’ minds and to develop their creative interface thinking. There are most certainly other options as well, but each teacher must decide what is appropriate in his or her own writing classroom! Karin M&rdsjti is a senior lecturer at the Department of Tema, Technology and Social Change, Linkiiping University. She is the director of the Technical Communication program at the technical faculty. Her e-mail address is
REFERENCES Alty, J. L., & Coombs, M. J. (1980). Face-to-face guidance of university computer users--I. services. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 12, 389-405. Barry, John A. (1993). Technobubble. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Biidker, Susanne. (1991). Through the interface. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
A study of advisory
Interfacing Technology
315
Button, Graham. (Ed.). (1993). The curious case of the vanishing technology. In Graham Button (Ed.), Technology in working order. Studies of work, interucrion and technology (pp. 10-28). London: Routledge. Coombs, M.J., & Alty, J. L. (1980). Face-to-face guidance of university computer users-II. Characterising advisory interactions. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 12, 407-429. Ehn, Pelle. (1988). Work-oriented design of computer artifacts. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Hemkonservering. Modern handbok i konservering av B&r, Frukt, GrZinsaker [Home preservation. Modern handbook in preservation of berries, fruits, vegetables] (18th ed.). (1951). Stockholm: We&a fdrlag. ICA Publishing Co. (n.d.). Laga mar i mikrovagsugn [Cook in a microwave oven]. Vasteras, Sweden: Author. Johansson, Birgitta. (1988). Ny teknik och gamla vanor En s&die om mikrovagsugnens introduktion [New technologies and old habits. A study of the introduction of microwave ovens] (Linkijping Studies in Arts and Science No. 28). LinkGping, Sweden: LinkBping University. MicroPro. (1982). MicroStar MAILMERGE (3rd ed.). Author. Mirel, Barbara. (1987). Designing field research in technical communication: Usability testing for in-house user documentation. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication. 17(4), 347-354. Mtidsjii, Karin. (1992). Miinniska, text, teknik. Tekniska handbiicker som kommmunikarionsmedel [Man, text, technology. Technical manuals as means of communication] (Linkiiping Studies in Arts and Science No. 82). LinkBping, Sweden: Linkaping University. MZudsjii, Karin. (1994). Man-text-technology: Technical manuals as means of communication. In Michael Steehouder, Care1 Jansen, Pieter van der Poort, & Ron Verheijen (Eds.), Quality of rechnical documenrarion (pp. 185-200). Utrecht: Rodopi. Norman, Donald A. (1990). The design of everyday things. New York: Basic Books. (Original work published 1988) Norman, Donald A., & Draper, Stephen W. (Eds.). (1986). User centered system design. New perspectives on human-computer interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Philips Company. (n.d.; circa 1988). Philips manual for microwave ovens. (version 2). Stockholm: Author. Pinch, Trevor; Bijker, Wiebe E., & Hughes, Thomas. (Eds.). (1987). The social consfrucfion of technological sysfems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. PSI Integration, Inc. (1993). COMsfation and power modem. User’s manual. Author. Rinaldi, H. Arlene. (1994). The net: User guidelines and netiquette.