CHAPTER VIII.
THE POST-LINGUAL ASPECTS OF
EwT - ENGAGING WITH THE TECHNOLOGY
HCI - HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION
In this chapter we look at the social and post-social aspects of
interaction between human user and the computer or other
information system as such, mostly considering the user interface
(UI).
» The social aspect concerns how different communities engage
with the user interface and the information it contains in different
ways.
» The economic aspect is about limitations on resources in the
interactions.
» The aesthetic aspect is about how the interaction works as a
whole, and how it is enjoyable.
» The juridical aspect is about how the interactions do justice to
both users and topic.
» The ethical aspect is about generosity in user interfaces.
» The faith / pistic aspect is about vision of the nature of the
interactions and of users that drives its design.
We will look at each aspect in turn.
The post lingual aspects serve the lingual by affecting its style and
how well it functions with other people. (This is called anticipatory
dependency in Dooyeweerd's philosophy. See Basden [2008, p.71]
and "http://www.dooy.info/"
VIII-1. EWT/HCI ACROSS ALL CULTURES
(Social Aspect of EwT/HCI)
The social aspect is manifested in the effect that cultural expectations,
connotations and assumptions have on the user's ability to understand
what the IS is telling them. It is especially important on web pages
because anyone in the world might have created it or be reading it.
There are a number of issues that should be borne in mind:
» Cultural connotations especially of images. Some are insults in
one culture but are perfectly innocent in another.
» Idioms. An idiom is a phrase, whose meaning cannot be derived
from the meanings of its words. Imagine you are a child in a
cold climate. "Were you born in a tunnel?", your mother
remarks as you enter the room. You are tempted to reply,
jokingly, "No, in a hospital" but you know what she means, and
you turn back and shut the door. Tunnels are draughty places.
But in other cultural contexts, the apparent question would not
mean the same thing. In Sweden 'tunnel' is 'church'. And, you
would only use this idiom in a family situation, never in a formal
situation like a job interview.
» Jokes and humour. Different cultures find different things
funny. Avoid in-jokes on a public website. The delight in
humour is aesthetic (see below) but to make it work is limited by
the social aspect.
» Culture-specific jargon, words, phrases or references. For
example the in-phrases among Manchester United supporters,
which others might not understand. High-register (intellectual)
words are also like this: words specific to intellectual culture.
» Standards. Standards are rules that have been agreed among the
social group should be followed. Standards exist for web
accessibility, for example.
» Expectations tend to be cultural in nature.
When your UI is a website, it is especially important to attend to
this social aspect because your readers might come from any culture
in the world. Even when it is a piece of software, the same applies
because your users might come from any culture.
On the other hand, if you are confident that only people of a
certain culture will access your site or use your software, you can
capitalise on their specialised cultural expectations and assumptions,
and design it to give them better service. For example, software
designed for chemists probably does not need to explain what most
chemists would know.
Examples: See above.
Exercises:
» Notice where you don't 'get' (understand) something, and ask
yourself whether that might be because the author / designer has
made assumptions that her/his social group would understand but
which you don't share.
» Notice each and every assumption that you made when designing
your presentations, applications, software, etc.
How do I design for this?:
When designing your content and also the user interface:
» As above: notice each and every assumption you make - get into
the habit of doing this.
» Then, for each, ask yourself whether all possible future users will
also make that assumption.
» If not, either change what you were going to say or do, or else
add an explanation for those who don't make that assumption.
» Beware humour and jokes. Use them very rarely. (Also, they
have more effect when used rarely.)
» Especially avoid 'in jokes' - because most people won't get them.
» Be careful not to offend - but don't let that paralyse your style.
» A useful tip: Stick to aspectual original meaningfulness. This is
because the meaning kernels of the aspects are grasped with the
intuition among all people.
Going deeper (Extant ideas):
VIII-2. MANAGING INTERFACE RESOURCES
EFFICIENTLY (Economic Aspect of EwT/HCI)
The following things impose limitations on the EwT/HCI, which may
be managed as resources. Hence they may be seen as the economic
aspect of the EwT/HCI, though many of the limitations arise at the
psychic and organic level. Each resource is of another aspect.
» Screen area; this limits the number of shapes than can be placed
on screen - especially on a mobile phone. Because the collections
of electronics that correspond with a pixel are limited, so are the
numbers of pixels on screen. So, at the bit level we speak of, for
example, 1280 by 1024 pixels, which is what we call its
resolution. This is a spatial resource.
» Rendering speed (rendering is the process of making up the
screen before it is displayed); this limits the speed at which
animations can occur. Each rendering process involves
calculations. Calculation is of the formative aspect, so rendering
speed is a formative resource.
» Bus speed. Maximum rate of computer's internal electronic bus,
memory or CPU; high resolution screens with many colours and
long sound samples, consumes a lot of the bus bandwidth, thus
limiting the speed at which the CPU can operate to process
programs. The speed at which pixels can be sent to the screen is
also limited by the speed at which the electronics can change the
colour-state of each cell. So there is a maximum refresh rate for
each type of screen. Typically this is 50 or 75 times per second
for a full screen. PAL TV works at 50 times a second. This is a
physical resource.
» Network speed. The speed at which two computers can
communicate is also limited at the hardware level by the highest
frequency at which the wired or wireless connection can operate -
and this too limits the speed at which, for example, files can be
downloaded from a network. This would seem physical aspect,
but what is important is not the number of bits transferred per
second, but the number of pieces of data. This is an analytic
resource (pieces of data per unit time).
» Frequency range of human ear; this limits the range of sounds
that may be used. The highest frequency that the human ear can
hear is (depending on age) from 5000 to 20000 Hz (cycles per
second). This limits the useful frequency range for sound output.
This is a psychic limitation.
» Maximum information rate, of absorbing new information; this
limits the speed at which visual field can change and at which
sounds can be made. There are three aspects of this limit. One
is psychic: the eye and ear and their nerves have limits on how
fast they can work. One is analytic: we are limited in how many
pieces of data we can cope with at one time: 'The magic number,
plus or minus two' [Miller, 1955].
» Input channel width; Input channel width is limited. It is the
number of different signals that can occur (e.g.
» with digital joystick there are 8 directions plus two buttons,
giving 10 different signals;
» with mouse there are two buttons; this allows only 3
different signals (LMB, RMB, both together)
» with keyboard there are say 80 keys, and these can be
modified by qualifiers like Shift, Ctrl, which can be used in
combinatinos, giving typically 640 (8*80) different signals)
All of these can be employed to allow the user to signal his/her
intended actions to the controller. But usually only a tiny subset
of them are actually used. There is growing interest in two-
handed input using mouse in one hand and keyboard or trackball
in the other.
» Human impatience; this means that the user will not wait many
seconds for what the computer is doing - e.g. download time -
unless they know of a good reason why it should take a long
time. Patience is probably a pistic matter (we get more impatient
if we are arrogant) or ethical-selfgiving matter (we don't want to
give others time).
» Attention span: Human attention span is limited. Do not make
your introduction sequences too long, do not make your
presentations too long.
» And many more.
All these are important in multimedia. Though each is a resource in a
particular aspect, the fact that there is a limit is the economic aspect
of EwT/HCI.
{*** As you use your computer or mobile phone, try to think of
other things that are limited. ***}
Note that managing these can involve going beyond limits for fun,
especially in games; see aesthetic aspect below.
The economic relationship between human and computer is not
symmetric between input and output. The human is good at detecting
and recognising visual and aural patterns, but the computer is poor at
doing so. This means that the computer can generate speech and
visual patterns and the user will usually know what is meant, but
speech recognition by computer is hard. Similarly, the computer is
good at reliably performing fast actions and doing calculations, while
the human is slower, less reliable and limited at calculation. So the
computer can be made to express much information at one time (e.g.
on one screen) whereas the human user would take some time to
express it all. Further, the human user has intentions while the
computer (usually) does not.
Examples: See above.
Exercises: See above.
How do I design for this?: Design with the following in mind:
» screen size and resolution (by reducing the number of words,
rather than reducing font size)
» user's ability to read small fonts
» user's patience (waiting for downloads) - so make your
downloadable files smaller. Be careful about having a lot of
Javascript downloaded, especially that which is not really
necessary.
» user's attention span, so don't force unnecessary information on
them.
» for mobile devices: battery consumption.
Going deeper (Extant ideas):
VIII-3. HARMONIOUS, ENJOYABLE INTERACTION
(Aesthetic Aspect of EwT/HCI)
The aesthetic aspect of EwT/HCI covers harmony, fun, beauty, style,
humour and interest, which the user experiences from the interaction
itself. The aesthetic aspect of EwT/HCI is typically focused in the
graphic and multimedia design of the interface. This is different from
the enjoyment they experience from engaging with the meaning or
from life itself while using the IS (which are an aesthetic aspect of
EMC and HLC).
VIII-3.1 Harmony
Here are some examples of harmony in EwT/HCI, which contribute
to the overall 'look and feel' of the EwT/HCI:
» colour schemes that harmonise,
» layout that is balanced
» animations that subtly contribute to the overall effect rather than
distracting attention
» sounds that go well with the visual UI.
Note the link with EMC: harmony of the content. Note link with
HLC: when the artefact harmonises (or not) with the user's
surroundings or lifestyle, e.g. coloured mobile phones and ring tones,
e.g. coloured casing of PC.
Examples:
Exercises:
How do I design for this?:
Going deeper (Extant ideas):
Look at the site Web Pages That Suck'
"http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com" and find lots of examples - and
advice for good design.
VIII-3.2 Beauty, Interest and Style
Here are some examples of beauty, interest, style of EwT/HCI or UI:
» backdrop: nice-looking, humorous or interesting
» the idea of using a 'paper clip' with a face to give advice
» nice-looking colours
» style of writing in text
» style of interactions (e.g. iPad, which Mike Levin believes to the
smoothest since the old Amiga; see
"http://mikelev.in/2010/04/the-ipad-is-magical-commodore-amiga/".
But after a time, these things can pall and get annoying.
It it very tempting to focus on these for their own sake (especially
graphic design), leading to one of those stunning user interfaces (e.g.
web sites) that look good but do not give useful information.
Remember, in EwT/HCI, all the aspects should so function as to
serve the lingual: they should enhance the communication of
information to and from the user. This is the major theme of that
authority on graphic design, Edward Tufte [1990].
The EwT/HCI involves more than the main content. For
example, consider a results page offered by a search engine. You
have several tranches of content:
» the main content (a list of articles found from the search)
» helpful suggestions for what else you might try
» navigation buttons or links
» advertisements
» administrative information like contact details.
The main content might be aesthetically pleasing, but what about the
overall effect? Designers and regular users of a UI tends to think
about only the main content, but other users and occasional observers
see the whole. So beware lest the adverts, for example, detract. In
EwT/HCI that is good according to the aesthetic aspect, all these will
harmonise, they will be relevance to each other. The most recent
search engines try to make all this relevant to your original search -
harmonising with it. Earlier ones did not, and the user would get
annoyed by the disharmony between what they were searching for and
the advertisements etc.
Examples:
Look at the site Web Pages That Suck'
"http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com" and find lots of examples - and
advice for good design.
Exercises:
How do I design for this?: See the design guidelines on that site.
Going deeper (Extant ideas):
VIII-3.3 Humour and Fun
Humour of the EwT/HCI does not refer to humour found in the
meaning-content, but refers to what it is about the user interface itself
that makes you laugh. It is, unfortunately, rare. However, I
encountered an example of it in the early Amiga operating system, in
that if you pressed keys in certain combinations and sequences, you
were rewarded by hidden messages appearing on the screen, such as
"We designed the Amiga, but Commodore ***d it up". These were
removed in the next version of the operating system! More useful
humour could be in the placement or shape of buttons or menus,
alluding to various things that are known in the culture e.g. the
Simpsons. {*** Designers of UIs: humour in the EwT/HCI might be
an opportunity to make your mark! ***}
But beware: (1) Humour is specific to certain cultures, e.g. not
all know the Simpsons, so designers must make sure their EwT/HCI
does not grate, annoying users who do not know their humour. (2) In
some serious applications fun is not appropriate; this is a matter under
the juridical aspect, below. But where fun or humour is
inappropriate, you can still design an aesthetic UI by attending to
harmony and interest and style.
Examples:
Exercises:
How do I design for this?: Don't try. It's very difficult to design
humour. Better just to let it happen.
Going deeper (Extant ideas):
VIII-3.4 Overall
Many of the rules of art are applicable to EwT/HCI, especially
C.S. Lewis' aphorism, "In art, less is more". What this means is
that the most aesthetically effective things are those that do not shout,
but provide subtle effects. This is why, for example, animations or
sounds that distract are bad aesthetically.
VIII-4. JUSTICE TO USER AND INFORMATION
(Juridical Aspect of EwT/HCI)
The juridical aspect is concerned with 'what is due', i.e. with what is
appropriate and proportional. In EwT/HCI, it is concerned with
» what is due to users
» what is due to the information (though that extends into EMC).
The main way in which appropriateness to the user comes to the
fore is when considering disabled users. For example:
» UIs in which it is impossible to enlarge the font are not giving
visually handicapped users their due of larger text.
» For totally blind people, the UI should be able to speak its text,
and describe anything else of importance.
Web Accessibility Guidelines are an attempt at giving due to disabled
people.
Examples:
Exercises:
How do I design for this?:
» Web accessibility guidelines are guidelines for ensuring that
visually or aurally challenged people can still gain benefit from
website.
Going deeper (Extant ideas):
VIII-5. GENEROSITY AND COURTESY OF THE
INTERACTION (Ethical Aspect of the EwT/HCI)
Ethicality does not mean good or bad. It means generosity and self-
giving. A UI that is good in the ethical aspect is one that is generous.
This issue has not been widely studied, so we cannot say much about
it, except for two things:
» Make facilities available to the user that will be helpful, but are
beyond the basics required.
» small extra design features, e.g. have duplicate menu entries
» design that gives users freedom and flexibility,
» backwards compatibility to help users who are used to older
versions of software
» tolerance of mistakes
» allowing users several different ways to achieve the same thing -
but design these in a way that does not make them confusing.
Examples:
Example (design features): My word processor has a menu to do with Blocks
(what it calls selected text), which allows me not only to set, delete and copy
blocks (the basics), but also copy a block from another document (very useful,
but quite common). An 'extra' that is surprisingly useful is the facility to
count the words in a block! Also, there is a facility to save a block (useful for
starting a new document) and and formatting the text in a block. But in this
menu there is no facility to print a block. For that facility I have to move to
the Print menu. And the facility to spell-check a block is in the Spell menu. It
would be nicer (more generous) if the Print Block and Spell-check Block
facilities were to be in the Block menu as well as in the other menus.
Example (user flexibility): Apple tends to limit user flexibility, imposing the
aesthetics that the designers have decided upon. While aesthetically excellent,
this is a slight dysfunction in the ethical aspect. Given that full repercussions
in later aspects typically take a decade or more to materialise (see Basden
[2008, p.77, table 3-3]), it may be that this will jeopardise Apple's long-temc
success.
Exercises:
» Look for examples of generous and non-generous user interfaces,
and learn from them.
» Look for examples of generous and non-generous Web pages,
and learn from them.
How do I design for this?:
» See above.
» In your own design, ask yourself if there is something extra that
you can include that would significantly benefit the user, but
which is not in the specification. If you have limited time to
design and develop the system, how are you going to include this
extra?
Going deeper (Extant ideas):
VIII-6. BELIEF, TRUST, COMMITMENTS, VISION
(Faith / Pistic Aspect of EwT/HCI)
The faith or pistic aspect refers to the users' beliefs, trust,
commitments and their and the developers' 'vision' that lies behind or
underlying the design of the EwT/HCI and UI. The expectations and
assumptions of both user and designer are the faith aspect, and also
what the user or designer beliefs to be 'good' (or bad) or meaningful.
These are usually taken for granted, but can deeply affect the quality
of the EwT/HCI. They are usually social in nature: shared
assumptions.
At the individual level, for example, you get used to one word
processor, you find others difficult to use.
At a higher level, there is the vision that lies behind the design of
EwT/HCI for a platform. This vision usually points to one of the
other aspects. For example the vision behind various platforms are as
follows:
» Apple: aesthetic aspect (being ahead on style)
» Microsoft: economic aspect (serving the business customer)
» Unix: formative aspect (being technically excellent)
» Linux: formative with ethical aspect (technical excellence with
open source)
» Amiga: aesthetic with psychic and kinematic aspects (fun,
colour, animation).
It is because vision is a pistic, rather than e.g. economic or social,
functioning that gives rise to what are called 'holy wars' (note the
faith-oriented language!) waged between supporters of different
platforms, such as Apple Mac, Linux, Amiga, and all denigrate the
Windows platform.
Examples: See above.
Exercises: Be aware how you see the users. Are they customers
(economic aspect), nuisances (ethical aspect dysfunction), clients to
merely satisfy (juridical aspect), people you want to admire your style
(aesthetic aspect with dysfunction in ethical aspect)? How should you
see the users? Could you see them as multi-aspectual human beings?
How do I design for this?: Keep every aspect uppermost in mind.
Going deeper (Extant ideas):
VIII-7. LINKS WITH OTHER IDEAS ABOUT EwT/HCI
Here we look at several views from extant literature, and link them
with the above. Some might be discussed in class. You are
encouraged to read around these and other views, because doing so
will broaden and deepen your understanding and enhance chance of
extra marks in exams.
VIII-7.1 Model-View-Controller
It is traditional to call the devices of the computer and its software
that accept the input the 'Controller', and those that provide the
ouptut the 'View'. Behind these, 'inside' the computer, is the
'Model', which contains all the information received from the
controller and from elsewhere, and which is expressed in the View.
The Model-View-Controller (MVC) architecture of the UI was first
devised in the 1980s as part of the promotion of the then-new object-
oriented view, especially with the Smalltalk operating system that
inspired many others including the Apple Mac, Amiga and Windows.
See Krasner & Rope [1988] for an overview of MVC and Hu &
Wang [1998] and Hu, Ma & Chau [1999] for use of MVC ideas.
Input and output, controller and view, differ, and the
characteristic of each suit the capabilities of both computer and
human.
» Input from human to computer (via the Controller) tends to be
slow and simple - an information rate of a few tens of pieces of
information per second. This suits the human because our ability
to send messages to the computer is limited, and it suits the
computer since its ability to recognise what the user wants is
limited.
» Output from computer to human (via the View) is fast and
complex, a screenful of information (hundreds of bits of
information) can be given several times a second (such a in a
fast-moving game). This suits the human since we can recognise
and collate information, especially via our eyes, very fast, and it
suits the computer, which can display or emit information very
fast. The View need not be a single window, but several. In
fact, the View need not be just a screen, but can involve also
sound output (loudspeakers) and other channels.
The Model is the store of information 'in' the computer, and the
View shows some of this information. The Model usually contains
more information than is shown in the View. The Controller
modifies some of the information held in the Model.
» For example, the Model might be a database of information about
medical patients, and the View might be showing some of the
data in one patient's record. Suppose the user issues a 'Delete'
command to remove the record for the patient whose information
is displayed in the View. The record is deleted from the
database. Then the View is updated to show that the record has
been deleted (for example, to show some information from
another record, or to show a message saying "Record has been
deleted").
» Suppose you are browsing a web page. You click on a
hyperlink. The Controller works out that it is a request to find
and display another page, and sends instructions to the Model
(which happens to be elsewhere on the World Wide Web) to find
that page. The page arrives, and the View is updated to show
this page.
Note that the Model need not be in the user's computer: it could be
distant on the Internet.
Paper can also be understood under the MVC framework. The
surface of the paper is both the View and the Model. It has no
controller (except the pencil that writes and the rubber that erases)
and model and view are identical.
VIII-7.2 Practical Guide to Usability
In their A Practical Guide to Usability Testing, Dumas and Redish
[1999,p.4] define usability as:
"Usability means that the people who use the product can do so
quickly and easily to accomplish their own tasks. This definition rests
on four points:
1. Usability means focusing on users.
2. People use products to be productive.
3. Users are busy people trying to accomplish tasks.
4. Users decide when a product is easy to use."
At first sight, there is a laudable focus on the human being, but closer
examination reveals a heavy emphasis on the economic and formative
aspects, as the following table shows:
Quantitative: -
Spatial: -
Kinematic: -
Physical: -
Organic (biotic): -
Psychic: -
Analytic: 'Users decide'
Formative: 'use', 'product', 'productive', 'trying to
accomplish tasks', 'easy to use'
Lingual: -
Social: 'focus on users'
Economic: 'busy', 'quickly'
Aesthetic: -
Juridical: -
Ethical: -
Faith: -
See how many aspects are missing.
On the other hand, many websites today are designed mainly to
look stunning (aesthetic aspect), often at the expense of usability; are
the web designers wrong, right, or what?
The proposal here is that neither Dumas and Redish's emphasis
on the formative and economic, nor web designers' emphasis on the
aesthetic are right or wrong in themselves, because these are just two
among many aspects. The shalom principle (which states that things
work well when every aspect is upheld and given its due) applies to
EwT/HCI, and absolutization of any aspect will jeopardise usability.
VIII-7.3 Winograd and Flores: Direct Engagement
Soon after it was published, Winograd and Flores' seminal work
Understanding Computers and Cognition [1986], made a profound
impression on this author. It is worth reading, being very easy to
read even though it is written at a philosophical level, and saying
thought-provoking things in its beginning and end, though the middle
of the book rather loses its way, in my opinion. The book did not so
much create a new way of looking at computers in him, as undergird
and express what he had already felt and believed for over ten years.
Moreover, though Polanyi's 'tacit dimension' [1967] was his
mainstay at the time, Winograd and Flores also helped him
understand the difference between distal and proximal user interfaces
(discussed earlier) before he discovered Dooyeweerd's philosophy and
the aspects.
This text is based on some in the author's book 'Philosophical
Frameworks for Understanding Information Systems', and has a
philosophical feel. It is offered here so that students can delve deeper
if they wish to. It continues in Appendix 4, which discusses W+F at
a philosophical level, but most of it is hopefully able to be understood
without a knowledge of philosophy.
Winograd and Flores (W+F) questioned the prevailing
'rationalistic' approach to computers especially found in AI and
suggested an approach based on Heidegger's existentialism,
phenomenology, hemceneutics and language theory, which were all
types of philosophy. W+F, using Heidegger, challenged the way
computers were understood in temcs of the Cartesian subject-object
relationship, as objects distal from, and operated upon by, humans.
In place of this they offered the ideas of 'thrownness' and
'breakdowns' based on Heidegger's notion of being-in-the-world.
W+F's second challenge was to the assumption that cognition is the
manipulation of knowledge of an objective world, and that we can
hope to construct machines that exhibit intelligent behaviour (as AI
hoped to do). Instead, using Maturana's notion of autopoiesis, they
argued that cognition is an emergent property of biological evolution
and that interpretation arises from cognition, and that computers
themselves can never be made truly intelligent. Their third challenge
was to assumptions that language is constituted in symbols with literal
meanings, that such symbols can be assembled into a knowledge base,
and that they are used within organisations as a means of transmitting
information. Instead, in accord with Searle's speech act theory, the
listener actively generates meaning especially as a result of social
interaction, and language is action, responsible for creating social
structures, not just being used within them - this is now called the
'Language Action Perspective'. It is impossible, they argued, for
computers to use language in the way humans do (even though they
might process natural language).
For more on this, and how Dooyeweerd's aspects fit into it, see
my 2008 article with the late Heinz Klein, 'New Research Directions
for Data and Knowledge Engineering: A Philosophy of Language
Approach' (Data & Knowledge Engineering, 67(2008), p.260-285).
W+F suggested 'A new foundation for design' of computer
systems. The aim of AI, KBS and EwT/HCI should be redirected,
away from an attempt to make computers 'intelligent' or to support
'rationalistic problem-solving', towards building useful systems that
are "aids in coping with the complex conversational structures
generated within an organization" [p.12]. They continue, "The
challenge posed here for design is not simply to create tools that
accurately reflect existing domains, but to provide for the creation of
new domains." This, they hope, will open the way to social progress
and "an openness to new ways of being" [p.13]. They outline the
design of a Coordinator system to support cooperative work.
W+F's work is still avidly discussed, and even inspirational, 20
years later [Weigand, 2006]. It deserves to be because it provides a
framework for understanding three of the areas of research and
practice (HUC, nature of computers and ISD) and touches on that of
technological ecology. It is seen as a flagship of the Language-Action
Perspective, which focuses on computer use in organisations and
especially the use of language in changing them.
VIII-9. A PHILOSOPHICAL LOOK AT EwT/HCI
These aspects may be seen from either the user's or the
computer's point of view as shown in Fig. 1.
VIII-8.1 The Central (Qualifying) Aspect of EwT/HCI
Which is the most important aspect of EwT/HCI? Answer: they all
are. That is not a very useful question. It is better to ask ...
What is the main purpose of interacting with a computer? Which is
the central aspect of EwT/HCI? We want an answer that is valid,
whatever the application; in this way, the answer does not depend on
EMC (what the information is about) or HLC (how our lives are
affected by it).
Answer:
The main purpose of interacting with a computer is usually to
gain and give information which the user can understand.
So the central aspect of EwT/HCI must be the lingual.
(NOTE: Identifying the central aspect is done by thinking about
what its main purpose or meaningfulness is. Dooyeweerd called it the
qualifying aspect. Identifying the central, or qualifying, aspect
simplifies a complex picture. The qualifying aspect is the one that is
most important in giving a thing its meaning, it destiny in life, and by
which we should judge whether it is good or bad at being that type of
thing. For example, a law court is qualified by the juridical aspect, a
business is qualified by the economic aspect, a pen is qualified by the
lingual aspect, and so on. {*** If you want to find out more about
qualifying aspects, see 'Philosophical Frameworks for Understanding
Information Systems' [Basden, 2008], pp. 86, 132 ff. ***})
The qualifying aspect of EwT/HCI is usually the lingual for all
information systems. This is because, regardless of application, the
main thing we experience is symbols on the screen (or heard from
speakers) that signify something, and in the actions we make that
signify what we want the computer to do. Note that this does not just
mean text, but can be any channel; see below.
The meaning is, of course, that which is represented in the
computer and if the EwT/HCI is of high quality then the user engages
with this represented meaning. As will be discussed at greater depth
in Chapter VI, the lingual aspect is the main link between EwT/HCI
and EMC (Engaging with Represented Meaning) - which is discussed
in a separate chapter. The lingual aspect 'reaches out' to all aspects
of the meaningful content, to represent all types of meaning.
Figure 1. Aspects of EwT/HCI from user's and computer's point of view
So, in most cases of computer use, the lingual aspect is the most
important aspect of EwT/HCI. Our functioning in all the other
aspects of EwT/HCI is mainly to serve the lingual functioning so that
it is effective in expressing and interpreting meaning.
(Very occasionally, the lingual is not the most important, but
these are rare. One example would be computer-controlled disco
lighting; here the human's interaction with the computer is primarily
psychic, and contains no symbolic meaning. But we will ignore such
specialised applications here.)
VIII-8.2 Other Aspects Serve the Lingual
The lingual aspect of EwT/HCI (or indeed of anything) cannot work
well without all the other aspects, especially those that are its nearest
neighbours. The pre-lingual serve the lingual as follows:
» The importance of the formative aspect in EwT/HCI lies in how
it helps structure the information presented to the user. Think
what it would be like if the information on screen was in random
places, with no structure.
» The importance of the analytic aspect in EwT/HCI lies in
ensuring clarity in the information presented. Think of what it
would be like if the information on screen was unclear.
» The importance of the psychic aspect lies in ensuring that the user
can see or hear what is presented. Think of what it would be like
if text had the same colour as background!
The post-lingual aspects serve the lingual as follows:
» The importance of the social aspect of EwT/HCI lies not in the
social intercourse that occurs when driving the computer (such as
children gathering round a games player, which is HLC), but in
whether the user understands the cultural connotations of, or
assumptions behind, what is shown on the screen (or heard
through the speakers), and with the standardisation of things like
user interface style.
» The importance of the economic aspect of EwT/HCI lies not in
the cost of the building that Elsie calculated (which is EMC) but
in such things as the effect of limited screen area: only a certain
amount of information is visible.
» The aesthetic aspect of EwT/HCI concerns how the harmony and
artistic style of the UI helps users properly understand what the
UI is presenting.
» The juridical aspect concerns whether the UI does justice to the
represented meaning, and so on.
Dooyeweerd called this inter-aspect dependency, and it goes in
two directions: foundational and anticipatory. The lingual aspect thus
depends foundationally on the aspects earlier than it, especially the
formative, the analytic, and psychic, and it anticipates the later
aspects, especially the social, economic, aesthetic and juridical.
Most of the aspects of EwT/HCI serve the lingual function of
understanding what is presented via the UI and responding.
VIII-8.3 What is Good and Bad in EwT/HCI
A norm is what is good, to be aimed for. Usability and ease of use,
for example, is usually good and a thing to aim for. But what exactly
is ease of use, and how can we evaluate it or design for it? It is now
acknowledged to cover many factors, which can be understood multi-
aspectually.
Table 1 lists several normative factors under each aspect.
Table 7. Aspects of usability
These are some of the things by which we could judge the UI or
EwT/HCI. But in each aspect you will find more if you need to.
And you could add the ethical and pistic aspects if you wish.
Sometimes there might seem to be conflict between such
aspectual norms. For example, the juridical norm of appropriateness
can make it difficult to standardise the style of UI [Basden, Brown,
Tetlow and Hibberd, 1996]. One way to resolve this is to take into
account the qualifying aspect of EwT/HCI. If, as suggested earlier,
this is the lingual aspect, then its norms of conveying information,
understandability and truth-telling should always be honoured.
However, the lingual norms should not themselves be absolutized,
because EwT/HCI only gains its meaning by referring beyond itself to
EMC and HLC.
Note: Sometimes it is appropriate to break the rules. Especially
in computer games or other fun software. For example, the rule that
all important symbols should be clearly seen (psychic, analytic
aspects) is reversed in games, where the best weapons or equipment
are hidden and difficult to see.
VIII-8.3 Aspects as Checklist: Guidelines for UI
While it is appropriate on occasion to focus attention on one aspect
(usually the qualifying) we should always do so in a way that gives all
the other aspects their due. If we over-emphasise an aspect we begin
to ignore other aspects, and the result is that the success or
fruitfulness of our activity is jeopardised. Thus, for example, a web
page that has superb graphics but is otherwise devoid of useful
content it will fall into disuse.
Web pages are user interfaces, and we can see the normativity of
many of the aspects recognised in the more mature published web
design guidelines. Table 2 shows the 'Research-Based Web Design
and Usability Guidelines' of the National Cancer Institute [2005] and
the main aspects of each guideline (aspects indicated by the first letter
of their name, from Q = Quantitative to P = Pistic).
Table 2. Aspects of Web Design Guidelines
Many have two aspects, sometimes because they cover two things
(e.g. "set goals" (formative) and "state goals" (lingual)) and
sometimes because the main idea is of two aspects (e.g. sharing is
both lingual and ethical). We do not differentiate between qualifying
and founding aspects here, but could do if a more precise analysis
were needed.
{*** Think about, and discuss, the following:
» Which aspects have most entries?
» Why do you think this is?
» Which aspects have least?
» Why do you think this is?
» Why are the formative and spatial aspects so important in web
accessibility?
***}
We can use aspectual analysis as a basis for critique. The first
thing that strikes us is how many aspects are represented here. This
is, of course, what one would expect from a good, mature set of
guidelines such as the NCI guidelines are. Second, we might look for
imbalance among the aspects. The spatial and formative aspects
appear more often than most other aspects; we can ask ourselves
whether this is appropriate. Perhaps more significant are some gaps,
at least in this 2005 version, some of which are quite surprising:
» The faith aspect of vision of who we are is completely absent, yet
one might expect some mention of the designers' vision for the
website. (It is possible that "Set goals" implies some pistic
vision for the site.)
» The ethical aspect of self-giving is present only in sharing design
ideas. Guidelines on how to give the reader more than is actually
due to them, and thus create a site that feels generous, would be
useful.
» The juridical aspect is almost absent, only represented
tangentially in the concept of providing 'useful' or meaningful
content. The juridical aspect would be relevant in temcs of
giving both the topic and the readers their due.
» Perhaps most surprising is the almost complete absence of the
social aspect - the two inclusions are rather tangential. Since
websites are read by people from any and every cultural group,
with varying background knowledge, expectations and world
views, we might expect a whole set of guidelines on appropriate
use of cultural connotations, humour, idiom, and on respecting
cultural sensitivities.
» The kinematic aspect is almost entirely absent. Animation can be
used to show movement, but have the designers of these
guidelines overlooked this, treating animation as a mere sensitive
or aesthetic decoration?
This aspectual analysis of these guidelines is not meant primarily
as a criticism of the guidelines, which are excellent when compared
with many others that are available, but rather to show how aspectual
analysis can be useful as an evaluation tool, and how it might be used
to suggest future improvements.
Copyright (c) Andrew Basden & Janice Whatley.
16 September 2008, 18 October 2008. 3 September 2009, 22
September 2009, 25 November 2009, 20 September 2010, 14
September 2011, 14 August 2012, 17 September 2012.