2017-02-10-usuario_turing_completo.markdown 38.9 KB
Newer Older
mini's avatar
mini committed
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
---
layout: post
title: "Usuario Turing Completo"
author: "Olia Lialina"
cover: "images/cover_endefensadelsl_nr5.png"
license: http://endefensadelsl.org/ppl_deed_es.html
---

fauno's avatar
fauno committed
9
Usuaria Turing Completa
mini's avatar
mini committed
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
=======================

> Publicado como "[Turing Complete
> User](http://contemporary-home-computing.org/turing-complete-user/).
> Traducción liberada bajo la [Licencia de Producción de
> Pares](http://endefensadelsl.org/ppl_deed_es.html) con permiso de la
> autora.



mini's avatar
avances    
mini committed
20
21
Invisible and Very Busy
-----------------------
mini's avatar
mini committed
22
23
24
25
26
27
Computers are getting invisible. They shrink and hide. They lurk under the
skin and dissolve in the cloud. We observe the process like an eclipse of 
the sun, partly scared, partly overwhelmed. We divide into camps and fight 
about advantages and dangers of  The Ubiquitous.  But whatever side we take — 
we do acknowledge the significance of the moment.

mini's avatar
avances    
mini committed
28
29
30
Invisible y muy ocupada
-----------------------

fauno's avatar
fauno committed
31
32
33
34
35
36
Las computadoras se están volviendo invisibles.  Se achican y se
esconden.  Merodean bajo la piel y desaparecen en la nube.  Observamos
el proceso como si se tratara de un eclipse solar, mitad asustadas y
mitad abrumadas.  Divididas en campos peleamos sobre las ventajas y
peligros de Lo Ubicuo.  Pero desde cualquier posición que tomemos,
reconocemos el significado del momento.
mini's avatar
mini committed
37

fauno's avatar
fauno committed
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
With the disappearance of the computer, something else is silently
becoming invisible as well — the User.  Users are disappearing as both
phenomena and term, and this development is either unnoticed or accepted
as progress — an evolutionary step. 

Con la desaparición de la computadora, algo más está volviéndose
silenciosamente invisible --La Usuaria.  Las usuarias están
desapareciendo como fenómeno tanto como término y este desarrollo pasa
inadvertido o es aceptado como progreso --un paso evolutivo.
mini's avatar
avances    
mini committed
47

mini's avatar
mini committed
48
49
50
51
The notion of  the Invisible User is pushed by influential user interface designers, 
specifically by Don Norman a guru of user friendly design and long time advocate of
invisible computing. He can be actually called the father of Invisible Computing.

fauno's avatar
fauno committed
52
53
54
55
56
La noción de la Usuaria Invisible es fomentada por influyentes
diseñadoras de interfaces de usuario (UI), específicamente por Don
Norman, un gurú del diseño amigable al usuario o "_user friendly_" y un
defensor veterano de la informática invisible.  Podríamos llamarlo el
padre de la informática invisible.
mini's avatar
avances    
mini committed
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64


Those who study interaction design read his “Why Interfaces Don’t Work” published
in 1990 in which he asked and answered his own question: “The real problem with the
interface is that it is an interface”.  What’s to be done? “We need to aid the
task, not the interface to the task. The computer of the future should
be invisible!”<a href="#fn-invisible" id="fnref-invisible" class="footnote">1</a>

fauno's avatar
fauno committed
65
66
67
68
69
70
Aquellas que estudian diseño de interacciones leyeron su libro "Por que
las interfaces no funcionan" publicado en 1990 en donde se pregunta y se
responde su propia incognita: "El problema real con la interfaz es que
es una interfaz".  ¿Que podemos hacer? "Necesitamos ayudar a la tarea,
no a la interfaz para la tarea.  ¡La informatica del futuro deberia ser
invisible!"[1]()
mini's avatar
avances    
mini committed
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104


It took almost two decades, but the future arrived around five years ago,
when clicking mouse buttons  ceased to be our main input method and touch and
multi-touch technologies hinted at our new emancipation from hardware. The cosiness
of iProducts, as well as breakthroughs in Augmented Reality (it got mobile),
rise of wearables, maturing of all sorts of tracking (motion, face) and the advancement
of projection technologies erased the visible border between input and output devices.
These developments began to turn our interactions with computers into pre-computer
actions or, as interface designers prefer to say, “natural” gestures and movements.

Tomo cerca de dos decadas, pero el futuro llego hace 5 años, cuando clickear botones dejo de ser
nuestro metodo principal de entrada y las tecnologias touch y multi-touch dieron a entender
una emancipacion del hardware. Lo acogedor de los iProductos, como tambien los avances exitosos en
realidad Aumentada (llego a los moviles), el crecimiento de dispositivos portatiles, 
la maduracion de todo tipo de tracking (movimiento, facial) y el avance de tecnologias de proyeccion
borraron la frontera visible entre dispositivos de entrada (input) y de salida (output).
Estos desarrollos empezaron a convertir nuestras interacciones con computadoras en acciones
pre-computadoras, o como las diseñadoras de interfaces prefieren decir, gestos y movimientos
"naturales".



Of course computers are still distinguishable and locatable, but they are no longer
something you sit in front of. The forecasts for invisibility are so optimistic
that in 2012 Apple allowed to themselves to rephrase Norman’s predictive
statement by putting it in the present tense and binding it to a particular
piece of consumer electronics:

Por supuesto las computadoras siguen siendo distinguibles y localizables, pero no
ya no son algo enfrente a lo que te sentas. El pronostico de invisibilidad es 
tan optimista que en 2012 Apple  se tomo la libertad de parafrasear la
prediccion de Norman poniendola en  presente perfecto y vinculandola a 
un dispositivo para consumidoras especifico.
mini's avatar
mini committed
105
106

<blockquote>
mini's avatar
avances    
mini committed
107
108
109
110
111
We believe that technology is at its very best when it is invisible, when you
are conscious only of what you are doing, not the device you are doing it
with [&#8230;] iPad is the perfect expression of that idea, it’s just this
magical pane of glass that can become anything you want it to be. It’s a 
more personal experience with technology than people have ever had.<a href="#fn-ipadtrailer" id="fnref-ipadtrailer" class="footnote">2</a>
mini's avatar
mini committed
112
113
</blockquote>

mini's avatar
mini committed
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
"Creemos que la tecnologia esta en su estado mas optimo cuando es invisible, Cuando
solo sos consciente de lo que estas haciendo, y no del dispositivo que usas un iPad
es la exprecion perfecta de esta idea, es este panel magico de vidrio  que puede 
convertirse en cualquier cosa que quieras. Es la experiencia  mas intima que la gente
llego a tener con la tecnologia." 


mini's avatar
avances    
mini committed
121
122
123
In this last sentence, the word “experience” is not an accident, neither 
is the word “people”.  

mini's avatar
mini committed
124
125
126
La palabra "experiencia" en esta ultima oracio no es un accidente, tampoco lo es
la palabra "gente".

mini's avatar
avances    
mini committed
127
128
129
130
131
132
Invisible computers, or more accurately the illusion of the computerless, is
destroyed if we continue to talk about “user interfaces”. This is why Interface
Design starts to rename itself to Experience Design — whose primary goal
is to  make users forget that computers and interfaces exist. With Experience
Design there is only you and your emotions to feel, goals to achieve, tasks to complete. 

mini's avatar
mini committed
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
Computadoras invisibles, o mejor dicho la ilusion de la falta de computadoras, esta destruida
si seguimos hablando de "interfaz de usuario". Es por esto que el diseño de interfaces
empieza a renombrararse como Diseño de Experiencias - que su objetivo principal
es hacer a las usuarias olvidarse que las computadoras y las interfaces existen. Con 
Diseño de Experiencias existen solo vos y tus emociones a sentir, tus objetivos a cumplir
y tus tareas a completar.


mini's avatar
avances    
mini committed
141
142
143
144
145
146
The field is abbreviated as UXD, where X is for eXperience and U is still for
the Users. Wikipedia says Don Norman coined the term UX in 1995. However, in 2012 UX
designers avoid to use the U-word in papers and conference announcements, in order
not to remind themselves about all those clumsy buttons and input devices of
the past. Users were for the interfaces. Experiences, they are for the PEOPLE!<a href="#fn-gamification" id="fnref-gamification" class="footnote">3</a>

fauno's avatar
fauno committed
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
Este campo es abreviado como _UXD_, donde la _X_ es e_X_periencia y la
_U_ todavía es por usuarias.  La Wikipedia dice que Don Norman acuñó el
término _UX_ en 1995. Sin embargo, en 2012 las diseñadoras de UX
evitaron la palabra con U en _papers_ y llamadas a conferencias, para no
tener que recordar aquellos incómodos botones y dispositivos de entrada
del pasado.  Las usuarias son para las interfaces.  !Las experiencias
son para la _gente_![^turing-3]

mini's avatar
avances    
mini committed
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
In 2008 Don Norman simply ceased to address Users as Users. At an event sponsored
by Adaptive Path, a user interface design company, Norman stated “One of
the horrible words we use is users. I am on a crusade to get rid of
the word ‘users’. I would prefer to call them &#8216;people.’”<a href="#fn-people" id="fnref-people" class="footnote">4</a> After enjoying the
effect of his words on the audience he added with a charming smile, “We design for
people, we don’t design for users.” 

fauno's avatar
fauno committed
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
En 2008 Don Norman simplemente dejó de referirse a las usuarias como
tales.  En un evento esponsoreado por _Adaptive Path_, una empresa de
diseño de interfaces de usuaria, Norman dijo que "una de las palabras
horribles que usamos es usuarias.  Me encuentro en una cruzada para
eliminar la palabra 'usuarias'.  Prefiero llamarlas 'gente'."[^turing-4]
Después de disfrutar el efecto de sus palabras sobre la audiencia,
agregó con una sonrisa cautivadora, "diseñamos para la gente, no
diseñamos para las usuarias".

mini's avatar
avances    
mini committed
171
172
173
174
175
176
A noble goal in deed, but only when perceived in the narrow context of Interface
Design. Here, the use of the term “people” emphasizes the need to follow the user
centered in opposition to an implementation centered paradigm. The use of “people”
in this context is a good way to remind software developers that the User is
a human being and needs to be taken into account in design and validation processes.

fauno's avatar
fauno committed
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
Sin duda un objetivo muy noble, pero solo cuando es percibido en el
estrecho contexto del diseño de interfaces.  Aquí, el uso del término
"gente" enfatiza la necesidad de centrarse en la usuaria en oposición al
paradigma centrado en la implementación.  El uso de "gente" en este
contexto es una buena manera de recordar a las desarrolladoras de
software que la usuaria es una persona y necesita ser tomada en cuenta
en el diseño y la validación de los procesos.

mini's avatar
avances    
mini committed
185
186
187
188
But when you read it in a broader context, the denial of the word “user” in
favor of “people” becomes dangerous. Being a User is the last reminder that there
is, whether visible or not, a computer, a programmed system you use.

fauno's avatar
fauno committed
189
190
191
192
193
Pero cuando se lo leo en un contexto más amplio, la negación de la
palabra "usuaria" en favor de la "gente" se torna peligrosa.  Ser una
usuaria es el último recordatorio de que existe, aun invisible, una
computadora, un sistema programado para ser usado.

mini's avatar
avances    
mini committed
194
195
196
197
In 2011 new media theoretician Lev Manovich also became unhappy about the word “user”.
He writes on his blog “For example, how do we call a person who
is interacting with digital media? User? No good.”<a href="#fn-lev" id="fnref-lev" class="footnote">5</a>

fauno's avatar
fauno committed
198
199
200
201
202
En 2011 el teórico de los nuevos medios Lev Manovich también se volvió
contra la palabra "usuaria".  Escribe en su blog: "por ejemplo, ¿cómo
llamamos a una persona que interactúa con un medio digital? ¿Usuaria? No
está bien."[^turing-5]

mini's avatar
avances    
mini committed
203
204
205
206
207
208
Well, I can agree that with all the great things we can do with new media
— various modes of  initiation and participation, multiple roles we can fill — that
it is a pity to narrow it down to “users”, but this is what it is.
Bloggers, artists, podcasters and even trolls are still users of systems they didn’t program.
So they (we) are all the users.

fauno's avatar
fauno committed
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
Puedo estar de acuerdo en que con todas las grandes cosas que podemos
hacer con los nuevos medios --los varios modos de iniciación y
participación, los múltiples roles que podemos tomar--, es una lástima
reducirlo todo a meras "usuarias", pero esto es lo que tenemos.  Las
_bloggers_, artistas, _podcasters_ e incluso las trolls todavía son
usuarias de sistemas que no programaron.  Así que todas ellas (nosotras)
somos usuarias.

mini's avatar
avances    
mini committed
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
We need to take care of this word because addressing people and not users hides
the existence of  two classes of people — developers and users. And if we lose
this distinction, users may lose their rights and the opportunity to protect them.
<a href="http://userrights.contemporary-home-computing.org/">These rights  are</a> 
to demand better software, the ability “to choose none of the above”<a href="#fn-rights" id="fnref-rights"
class="footnote">6</a>, to delete your files, to get your files back, to fail epically and,
back  to the fundamental one, to  see the computer.
mini's avatar
mini committed
224

fauno's avatar
fauno committed
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
Necesitamos hacernos cargo de esta palabra porque dirigiéndonos a gente
y no a usuarias esconde la existencia de dos clases de personas
--desarrolladoras y usuarias.  Y si perdemos esta distinción, las
usuarias podrían perder sus derechos y la oportunidad de protegerlos.
[Estos derechos](http://userrights.contemporary-home-computing.org/) son
demandar mejor software, la habilidad de elegir "nada de lo
anterior"[^turing-6], de borrar nuestros archivos, de recuperar nuestros
archivos, de fallar épicamente y, de vuelta al derecho fundamental, de
_ver_ la computadora.

mini's avatar
mini committed
235
236
<strong>In other words: the Invisible User is more of an issue than an Invisible Computer.</strong>

fauno's avatar
fauno committed
237
238
239
**En otras palabras: la usuaria invisible es un problema mucho más
grande que la computadora invisible.**

mini's avatar
avances    
mini committed
240
241
242
243
244
What can be done to protect the term, the notion and the existence of the
Users? What  counter arguments can I find to stop Norman’s crusade and dispel
Manovich’s skepticism? What do we know about a user, apart from the opinion that
it is “no good” to be one?

fauno's avatar
fauno committed
245
246
247
248
249
250
¿Qué se puede hacer para proteger el término, la noción y la existencia
de las usuarias?  ¿Cuáles contra-argumentos puedo encontrar para detener
la cruzada de Norman y disipar el escepticismo de Manovich?  ¿Qué
sabemos sobre una usuaria, aparte de la opinión de que "no está bien"
ser una?

mini's avatar
avances    
mini committed
251
252
253
254
255
We know that it was not always like this. Before Real Users (those who
pay money to use the system) became “users”, programmers and hackers proudly used this
word to describe themselves. In their view, the user was the best role one
could take in relation to their computer.<a href="#fn-tron" id="fnref-tron" class="footnote">7</a>

fauno's avatar
fauno committed
256
257
258
259
260
261
Sabemos que no siempre es así.  Antes de las usuarias reales (aquellas
que pagan dinero para usar el sistema) se conviertan en "usuarias", las
programadoras y hackers usaban orgullosamente este término para
referirse a sí mismas.  En su visión, la usuaria es el mejor rol que una
puede tomar en relación con su computadora.[^turing-7]

mini's avatar
avances    
mini committed
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
Furthermore, it is wrong to think that first there were computers and developers and
only later users entered the scene. In fact, it was the opposite. At the
dawn of personal computer the user was the center of attention.  The user
did not develop in parallel with the computer, but prior to it. Think about
Vanevar Bush’s “As we May Think” (1945), one of the most influential texts in
computer culture. Bush spends more words describing the person who would use the Memex
than the Memex itself.  He described a scientists of the future, a superman.
He, the user of the Memex, not the Memex, itself was heading the article.<a
href="#fn-memex" id="fnref-memex" class="footnote">8</a>

fauno's avatar
fauno committed
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
Aun más, es un error pensar que primero hubo computadoras y
desarrolladoras y que solo después aparecieron las usuarias.  De hecho,
fue lo opuesto.  En el amanecer de la computadora personal la usuaria
era el centro de atención.  La usuaria no se desarrolló en paralelo con
la computadora, sino que la precedió.  Tomemos _"As we may think"_
(1945) de Vanevar Bush, uno de los textos más influenciales de la
cultura informática.  Bush usa más palabras describiendo a la persona
que utiliza el _Memex_ que a la _Memex_ misma.  Describía a las
científicas del futuro como super-personas.  Él mismo, usuario de la
_Memex_, no la _Memex_, encabezaba el artículo.[^turing-8]

mini's avatar
avances    
mini committed
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
20 years later, Douglas Engelbart, inventor of the pioneering personal computer system NLS, as
well as hypertext, and the mouse, talked about his research on the augmentation of
human intellect as  “bootstraping” — meaning that human beings, and their brains and
bodies, will evolve along with new technology. This is how French sociologist Thierry Bardini
describes this approach in his book about Douglas Engelbart: “Engelbart wasn’t interested in just
building the personal computer. He was interested in building the person who could use
the computer to manage increasing complexity efficiently.”<a href="#fn-bootstrapping" id="fnref-bootstrapping" class="footnote">9</a>

fauno's avatar
fauno committed
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
20 años después, Douglas Engelbart, inventor del sistema de computadoras
personales _NLS_, así como del hipertexto y el _mouse_, hablaba sobre su
investigación sobre el aumento del intelecto humano como en su período
de arranque --queriendo decir que los seres humanos, con sus cerebros y
cuerpos, evolucionarían a la par que las nuevas tecnologías.  Así es
como el sociólogo francés Thierry Bardini describe el abordaje de su
libro sobre Engelbart: "Engelbart no estaba interesado en la simple
construcción de la computadora personal.  Le interesaba construir la
persona que pudiera usar la computadora para administrar eficientemente
la complejidad en aumento."[^turing-9]

mini's avatar
avances    
mini committed
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
And let’s not forget the title of J.C.R. Licklider’s famous text, the one that
outlined the principles for APRAs Command and Control research on Real Time System, from
which the interactive/personal computer developed
<em>Man</em>-Computer Symbiosis (1960).<a href="#fn-lick" id="fnref-lick" class="footnote">10</a>

When the personal computer was getting ready to enter the market 15 years later,
developers thought about who would be model users. At XEROX PARC, Alan Kay and
Adele Goldberg introduced the idea of kids, artists, musicians and others as potential users
for the new technology. Their paper “Personal Dynamic Media” from 1977<a href="#fn-pdm" id="fnref-pdm" class="footnote">11</a>
describes important hardware and software principles for the personal computer. But we read this
text as revolutionary because it clearly establishes possible users, distinct from system developers, as
essential to these dynamic technologies. Another Xerox employee, Tim Mott (aka “The father of
user centered design”) brought the idea of a Secretary into the imagination of his
colleagues. This image of the  “Lady with the Royal Typewriter”<a href="#fn-lady" id="fnref-lady" class="footnote">12</a>
predetermined the designs of  XEROX Star, Apple Lisa and and further electronic offices.

So, it’s important to acknowledge that users existed prior to computers, that they were
imagined and invented — Users are the figment of the imagination. As a result
of their fictive construction, they continued to be re-imagined and re-invented through the 70’s,
80’s, 90’s, and the new millennium. But however reasonable, or brave, or futuristic, or
primitive these models of users were, there is a constant.

Let me refer to another guru of user centered design, Alan Cooper. In 2007,
when the U word was still allowed in interaction design circles, he and his
colleagues shared their secret in “About Face, The Essentials of Interaction Design”:
mini's avatar
mini committed
327
328

<blockquote>
mini's avatar
avances    
mini committed
329
330
  “As an interaction designer, it’s best to imagine that users – especially —
  beginners — are simultaneously very intelligent and very busy.”<a href="#fn-cooper" id="fnref-cooper" class="footnote">13</a>
mini's avatar
mini committed
331
332
</blockquote>

mini's avatar
avances    
mini committed
333
334
335
336
337
It is very kind advice (and one of the most reasonable books on interface
design, btw) and can be translated roughly as “hey, front end developers, don’t assume
that your users are more stupid than you, they are just busy.” But it
is more than this. What the second part of this quote gets to so
importantly is that Users are people who are very busy <em>with something else</em>.
mini's avatar
mini committed
338

mini's avatar
avances    
mini committed
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
Alan Cooper is not the one who invented this paradigm, and not even Don
Norman with his concentration on task rather than the tool. It originated in the
1970’s. Listing the most important computer terms of that time, Ted Nelson mentions so
called “user level systems” and states that these “User-level systems, [are] systems set up
for people who are <em>not thinking about computers</em> but about the subject or activity
the computer is supposed to help them with.”<a href="#fn-userlevel" id="fnref-userlevel" class="footnote">14</a>  Some pages
before he claims: 
mini's avatar
mini committed
346
347
348

<figure id="hugeassquote"><img src="personal-computing.png" width="1000" height="432" alt="" /></figure>

mini's avatar
avances    
mini committed
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
<a href="#fn-justauser" id="fnref-justauser" class="footnote">15</a>One should remember that Ted Nelson was always on the side
of users and even “naïve users” so his bitter “just a user” means a lot. 

Alienation of users from their computers started in XEROX PARC with secretaries, as well
as artists and musicians. And it never stopped. Users were seen and marketed as
people who’s real jobs, feelings, thoughts, interests, talents — everything what matters — lie
outside of  their interaction with personal computers.

For instance, in 2007, when Adobe, the software company who’s products are dominating the
so called “creative industries”, introduced version 3 of Creative Suite,  they filmed 
graphic artists, video makers and others talking about the advantages of this new software
package. In particular interesting was one video of a web designer (or an actress
in the  role of  a web designer): she enthusiastically demonstrated  what
her new Dream Weaver could do, and that in the end “I have more time to do
what I like most — being creative”. The message from Adobe is clear. The
less you think about source code, scripts, links and the web itself, the more
creative you are as a web designer. What a lie. I liked to show
it to fresh design students as an example of misunderstanding the core of the
profession.

This video is not online anymore, but actual ads for Creative Suite 6 are
not much different – they feature designers and design evangelists talking about unleashing, increasing
and enriching creativity as a direct result of fewer clicks to achieve this or
that effect.<a href="#fn-adobe" id="fnref-adobe" class="footnote">16</a>
mini's avatar
mini committed
373
374
375
376

In the book “Program or be Programmed”, Douglas Rushkoff describes similar phenomena: 

<blockquote>
mini's avatar
avances    
mini committed
377
378
379
380
381
  [&#8230;] We see actual coding as some boring chore, a working class skill
  like bricklaying, which may as well be outsourced to some poor nation while our
  kids play and even design video games. We look at developing the plots and
  characters for a game as the interesting part, and the programming as the rote
  task better offloaded to people somewhere else.<a href="#fn-rushkoff" id="fnref-rushkoff" class="footnote">17</a>
mini's avatar
mini committed
382
383
</blockquote>

mini's avatar
avances    
mini committed
384
385
386
Rushkoff states that code writing is not seen as a creative activity, but the
same applies to engagement with the computer in general. It is not seen as
a creative task or as “mature thought”.
mini's avatar
mini committed
387

mini's avatar
avances    
mini committed
388
389
In “As we may think”, while describing an ideal instrument that would augment the scientist of the future,
Vanevar Bush mentions
mini's avatar
mini committed
390
391

<blockquote>
mini's avatar
avances    
mini committed
392
393
394
  For mature thought there is no mechanical substitute. But creative thought and essentially
  repetitive thought are very different things. For the latter there are, and may be,
  powerful mechanical aids<a href="#fn-mature" id="fnref-mature" class="footnote">18</a>
mini's avatar
mini committed
395
396
</blockquote>

mini's avatar
avances    
mini committed
397
398
399
400
401
Opposed to this, users, as  imagined by computer scientists, software developers and usability
experts are the ones who’s task is to spend as little time as possible
with the computer, without wasting a single thought on it. They require a specialized,
isolated app for every “repetitive thought”, and, most importantly, delegate drawing the border in
between creative and repetitive, mature and primitive, real and virtual, to app designers.
mini's avatar
mini committed
402

mini's avatar
avances    
mini committed
403
404
405
406
There are periods in history, moments in life (and many hours a day!) where
this approach makes sense, when delegation and automation are required and enjoyed. But in
times when every aspect of life is computerized it is not possible to accept
“busy with something else” as a norm.
mini's avatar
mini committed
407

mini's avatar
avances    
mini committed
408
409
So let’s look at another model of  users that evolved outside and despite
usability experts’ imagination.
mini's avatar
mini committed
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424

<div class="two_images">
<figure>
<img src="scientist.jpg" width="500" height="336" alt="" />
<figcaption>“A scientist of the Future”<br>Title picture of Vanevar Bush’s “As we make think”<br>
<a href="http://totalrecallbook.com/storage/As%20We%20May%20Think%20Vannevar%20Bush%20450910.pdf">Illustrated version</a> from Life magazine, 1945</figcaption>
</figure>
<figure>
<img src="sergey-dolya.jpg" width="500" height="336" alt="" />
<figcaption>Russian travel blogger <a href="http://sergeydolya.livejournal.com/510565.html">Sergey Dolya</a><br>photo by Mik Sazonov, 2012</figcaption>
</figure>
</div>

<h2 id="generalpurposestupidanduniversal">General Purpose, “Stupid” and Universal</h2>

mini's avatar
avances    
mini committed
425
426
427
In “Why Interfaces Don’t Work” Don Norman heavily criticizes the world of visible computers,
visible interfaces and users busy with all this. Near the end of the text
he suggests the source of the problem: 
mini's avatar
mini committed
428
429

<blockquote>
mini's avatar
avances    
mini committed
430
431
432
433
  “We are here in part, because  this is probably the best we
  can do with today’s technology and, in part, because of historical accident. The accident
  is that we have adapted a general-purpose technology to very specialized tasks while still
  using general tools.”<a href="#fn-accident" id="fnref-accident" class="footnote">19</a>
mini's avatar
mini committed
434
435
</blockquote>

mini's avatar
avances    
mini committed
436
437
438
439
440
In December 2011 science fiction writer and journalist Cory Doctorow gave a marvelous talk
at the 28th Chaos Communication Congress in Berlin titled “The coming war on general
computation”.<a href="#fn-cory" id="fnref-cory" class="footnote">20</a> He explains that there is only one possibility for computers
to truly become appliances, the tiny, invisible, comfortable one purpose things Don Norman was
preaching about: to be loaded with spyware. He explains, 
mini's avatar
mini committed
441
442

<blockquote>
mini's avatar
avances    
mini committed
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
  “So today we have marketing departments who say things like &#8216;[&#8230;] Make me a
  computer that doesn’t run every program, just a program that does this specialized task,
  like streaming audio, or routing packets, or playing Xbox games’ [&#8230;] But that’s not
  what we do when we turn a computer into an appliance. We’re not making
  a computer that runs only the “appliance” app; we’re making a computer that can
  run every program, but which uses some combination of rootkits, spyware, and code-signing to
  prevent the user from knowing which processes are running, from installing her own software,
  and from terminating processes that she doesn’t want. In other words, an appliance is
  not a stripped-down computer — it is a fully functional computer with spyware on
  it out of the box.”
mini's avatar
mini committed
453
454
</blockquote>

mini's avatar
avances    
mini committed
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
By fully functional computer  Doctorow means the general purpose computer,  or as
US mathematician John von Neumann referred to it in his 1945 “First Draft of
a Report on the EDVAC” — the “all purpose  automatic digital computing system”.<a
href="#fn-edvac" id="fnref-edvac" class="footnote">21</a> In this paper he outlined the principles of digital computer architecture
(von Neumann Architecture), where hardware was separated from the software and from this the
so called “stored program” concept was born. In the mid 40’s the revolutionary impact
of it was  that “by storing the instructions electronically, you could change the
function of the computer without having to change the wiring.”<a href="#fn-wiring" id="fnref-wiring" class="footnote">22</a>

Today the rewiring aspect doesn’t have to be emphasized, but the idea itself that
a  single computer can do everything is essential, and that it is the
same general purpose computer behind “everything” from dumb terminals to super computers.

Doctorow’s talk is a perfect entry point to get oneself acquainted with the subject.
To go deeper into the history of the war on general computation you may
consider reading Ted Nelson. He was the first to attract attention to the significance
of the personal computer’s all-purpose nature. In 1974 in his glorious fanzine “Computer Lib”
which aimed to explain computers to everybody, he writes in caps lock:
mini's avatar
mini committed
473
474
475

<blockquote>
  COMPUTERS HAVE NO NATURE AND NO CHARACTER<br>
mini's avatar
avances    
mini committed
476
477
  Computers are, unlike any other piece of equipment, perfectly BLANK. And that is
  how we have projected on it so many different faces.<a href="#fn-capslock" id="fnref-capslock" class="footnote">23</a>
mini's avatar
mini committed
478
479
</blockquote>

mini's avatar
avances    
mini committed
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
Some great texts written this century are “The Future of the Internet and How
to Stop It” (2008) by Jonathan Zittrain and of course “The Future of Ideas”
(2001) by Lawrence Lessig. Both authors are more concerned with the architecture of the
internet than the computer itself but both write about the  end-to-end principle that lies at the internet’s core — meaning  that there is no intelligence (control)
build into the network. The network stays neutral or “stupid”, simply delivering packets without
asking what’s inside. It is the same with the von Neuman computer — it
just runs programs.

The works of Lessig, Zittrain and  Doctorow do a great job of explaining
why both computer and network architectures are neither historic accidents nor “what technology wants”.<a
href="#fn-kelly" id="fnref-kelly" class="footnote">24</a> The stupid network and the general purpose computer were conscious design
decisions.

For Norman, further generations of hardware and software designers and their invisible
users dealing with General Purpose technology is both accident and obstacle.
For the rest of us the rise and use of General Purpose Technology is the core of
New media, Digital Culture  and  Information Society (if you believe that something
like this exists). General purpose computers and Stupid Networks are the core values of
our computer-based time and the driving force behind all the wonderful and terrible things
that happen to people who work and live with connected computers. These prescient design
decisions have to be protected today, because technically it would be no big deal
to make networks and computers “smart”, i.e. controlled.

What does it all have to do with “users” versus “people” — apart from
the self evident fact that only the users who are  busy with computers
at least a little bit — to the extent of watching Doctorow’s video till
the end — will fight for these values?

I would like to apply the concept of General Purpose Technology to users by
flipping the discourse around and redirecting attention from technology to the user  that
was formed through three  decades of adjusting general purpose technology to their needs:
<strong>The General Purpose User.</strong>

General Purpose Users can write an article in their e-mail client, layout
their business card in Excel and  shave in front of a web cam.
They can also find a way to publish photos online without flickr,  tweet
without twitter, like without facebook, make a black frame around pictures without instagram, remove
a black frame from an instagram picture and even wake up at 7:00 without
a “wake up at 7:00” app.

Maybe these Users could more accurately be called Universal Users or Turing Complete Users,
as a reference to the Universal  Machine, also known as Universal Turing Machine
— Alan Turing’s conception of a computer that can solve any logical task given
enough time and memory. Turing’s 1936 vision and design  predated and  most
likely influenced  von Neuman’s First Draft and All-purpose Machine.

But whatever name I chose, what I mean are users who have the ability
to achieve their goals regardless of the primary purpose of an application or device.
Such users will find a way to their aspiration without an app or utility
programmed specifically for it. The Universal user is not a super user, not half
a hacker. It is not an exotic type of user.

There can be different examples and levels of autonomy that users can imagine for
themselves, but the capacity to be universal is still in all of us. Sometimes
it is a conscious choice not to delegate particular  jobs to the computer,
and sometimes it is just a habit. Most often it is not more than
a click or two that uncover your general purpose architecture.

For instance, you can decide not to use Twitter at all and instead inform
the world about your breakfast through your own website. You can use Live Journal
as if it is Twitter, you can use Twitter as Twitter, but instead of
following people, visit their profiles as you’d visit a homepage.

You can have two Twitter accounts and log in to one in Firefox, and
the other in Chrome. This is how I do it and it  doesn’t
matter why I prefer to manage it this way. Maybe I don’t know that
an app for managing multiple accounts exists, maybe I knew but didn’t like it,
or maybe I’m too lazy to install it. Whatever, I found a way. And
you will do as well.

A Universal User’s mind set (it is a mind set, not set of rules,
not a vow) means to liaise with hardware and software. Behavior that is antipodal
to the “very busy” user. This kind of interaction makes the user visible, most
importantly to themselves. And, if you wish to think about it in terms of
Interface Design and UX, it is the ultimate experience.

Does this mean that to deliver this kind of user experience the software industry
needs to produce imperfect software or hold itself back from improving existing tools? Of
course not! Tools can be perfect.

Though the idea of perfect software could be revised, taking into account that it
is used by the General Purpose User, valuing ambiguity and users’ involvement.

And thankfully ambiguity is not that rare. There are online services where users are
left alone to use or ignore features.  For example, the developers of Twitter
didn’t take measures that prevent me from surfing from profile to profile of people
I don’t follow. The Dutch social network Hyves allows their users to mess around
with background images so that they don’t need any photo albums or instagrams to
be happy.  Blingee.com, who’s primary goal is to let users add glitter to
their photos, allows to upload whatever stamps they want — not glittery, not even
animated. It just delivers the user merged layers in return. 

I can also mention here an extreme example of a service that nourishes the
user’s universality — <a href="http://myknet.org/">myknet.org</a> — an Aboriginal social network in Canada. It is
so “stupid” that users can re-purpose their profiles every time they update them. Today
it functions as a twitter feed, yesterday it was a youtube channel, and tomorrow
it might be an online shop. Never-mind that it looks very low-tech and like
it was made 17 years ago, it works!
mini's avatar
mini committed
578
579
580

In general the WWW, outside of Facebook, is an environment open for interpretation.

mini's avatar
avances    
mini committed
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
Still, I have difficulties finding  a site or an app, that actually addresses
the users, and sees their presence as a part of  the work flow.
This maybe sounds strange, because all web 2.0 is about pushing people to contribute,
and “emotional design” is supposed to be about establishing personal connections in between people
who made the app and people who bought it, but I mean something different.
I mean a situation when the work flow of an application has gaps that
can be filled by users, where smoothness and seamlessness are broken and some of
the final links in the chain are left for the users to complete.
mini's avatar
mini committed
589

mini's avatar
avances    
mini committed
590
591
I’ll leave you with an extreme example, an anonymous (probably student) project:<br>“Google Maps +
Google Video + Mashup — Claude Lelouch’s Rendezvous”:
mini's avatar
mini committed
592
593
594

<figure><img src="mashup.png" width="1000" height="720" alt="" /></figure>

mini's avatar
avances    
mini committed
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
It was made in 2006, at the very rise of Web 2.0<a href="#fn-w20" id="fnref-w20"
class="footnote">25</a>, when the mash-up was a very popular cultural, mainstream artistic form. Artists were
celebrating new convergences and a blurring of the borders between different pieces of software.
Lelouch’s Rendezvous is a mash up that puts on the same page the famous
racing film of the same name and a map of Paris, so that you
can follow the car in the film and see its position on the Google
map at the same time.  But the author failed (or perhaps didn’t intend)
to synchronize the video and the car’s movement on the map. As a result
the user is left with the instruction:  “Hit play on the video. [&#8230;]
At the 4 second mark, hit the &#8216;Go!’ button.” 

The user is asked not only to press one but two buttons! It suggests
that we take care ourselves, that we make can complete a task at the
right moment. The author obviously counts on users intelligence, and never heard that
they are “very busy”.

The fact that the original video file that was used in the mash up
was removed, makes this project even more interesting. To enjoy it, you’ll have to
go to YouTube and look for  another version of the film. I found
one, which means you’ll succeed as well. 
mini's avatar
mini committed
615
616
617
618
619

<strong>There is nothing one user can do, that another can’t given enough time and respect. Computer Users are Turing Complete.</strong>

<p style="text-align:center">* * *

mini's avatar
avances    
mini committed
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
When Sherry Turkle, Douglas Rushkoff and other great minds state that we need to
learn programming and understand our computers in order to not be programmed and “demand
transparency of other systems”<a href="#fn-pobp" id="fnref-pobp" class="footnote">26</a>, I couldn’t agree more. If the approach
to computer education in schools was to switch from managing particular apps to writing
apps it will be wonderful. But apart from the fact that it is not
realistic, I would say it is also not enough. I would say it is
wrong to say either you understand computers or u are the user.<a href="#fn-schools" id="fnref-schools" class="footnote">27</a>

An effort must be made to educate the users about themselves. There should be
understanding of  what it means to be a user of  an “all
purpose  automatic digital computing system”.

General Purpose Users are not a historic accident or a temporary anomaly. We are
the product  of the “worse is better”  philosophy of UNIX, the end-to
end  principle of the internet, the “under construction” and later “beta” spirit of
the web. All these designs that demand attention, and ask for forgiveness and engagement
formed us as users, and we are always adjusting, improvising and at the same
time taking control. We are the children of  the misleading and clumsy Desktop
Metaphor, we know how to open doors without knobs.<a href="#fn-knobs"
id="fnref-knobs" class="footnote">28</a>

We, general purpose users — not hackers and not people — who are challenging, consciously
or subconsciously, what we can do and what computers can do, are the ultimate
participants of man-computer symbiosis. Not exactly the kind of symbiosis Licklider envisioned,
but a true one.
mini's avatar
mini committed
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661

<strong><em><a href="http://art.teleportacia.org/olia.html">Olia Lialina</a>, October 2012</em></strong>

<em>I would like to thank<br>
Caitlin Jones for correcting my English and<br>
<a href="http://1x-upon.com/~despens/">Dragan Espenschied</a> for designing this page.</em>
<br>
<br>
<em>Consider reading the folow up articles</em>
<br>
        <h3><a href="../RUE/">Rich User Experience, UX and Desktopization of War</a></h3>
            The morning after experience design<br>
            Olia Lialina, 2015-01-03
            <h3><a href="../art-and-tech/not/">Not Art&Tech</a></h3>
            On the role of Media Theory at Universities of Applied Art, Technology and Art and Technology. <br>
            Olia Lialina, 2015-11-17