All posts by Andreu Belsunce

20 Apr

The Methodology behind the Interface Manifesto

The PIPES_BCN methodology gradually took shape as the research project progressed. In general terms, we have used a multidisciplinary, qualitative and partially practice-based methodology.

The team members initially organised several meetings to define the object of study, which had to tie in with the objective of the Participatory Investigation in Public Engaging Spaces (PIPES) European program.

The overall goal of PIPES is to bring together artists, designers, communication theorists, and technologists to develop creative processes and new visual communication tools, produce online and offline artistic and educational events, and generate sustainable creative models for public participation. Specifically, PIPES seeks to create an interactive tool to generate new contexts for interaction and exchange, based on the language of symbols and icons.

The project is run by several European art and technology centres including ZKM in Karlsruhe and CIANT and BrainZ in Prague. In Barcelona, Hangar, in collaboration with the UOC, decided to embark on a critical overview that could generate a shared state of the art in the fields of interface design and data visualization.

As the project progressed, the emphasis on data visualization was gradually replaced by a focus on the ethical, aesthetic, philosophical, technical, semiotic, ideological, and social aspects of the interface. After discussing several texts, the main objectives of PIPES_BCN were defined as follows:

To produce an Interface Manifesto that that develops a critical approach to the interface. The idea is to generate a multidisciplinary conceptual framework from which to reflect on interfaces, rethinking their design and models of use while at the same time seeking to stimulate the creation of more open and collaborative interfaces.

Once the objective had been defined and participants had agreed that the Interface Manifesto would be the springboard, the engine of the research, and the ultimate goal, they drafted a  theoretical framework that grew as the research progressed. This framework draws on disciplines such as science and technology studies, media studies, semiotics, software studies and actor network theory, to name just a few. The readings, compiled on the platform Zotero, generated a context for reflection which was gradually enriched as layers were added through a series of activities. Likewise, the research gradually generated a network of participating actors and institution, including BAU (Barcelona), Constant (Brussels), OST (Brussels), Xnet (Barcelona), and the CCCB (Barcelona), among others.

The activities carried out with a view to generating the diverse, open discourse around interfaces that was to end up leading to the production of the Interface Manifesto, were:

Keeping a record of the entire research process at  pipes.hangar.org
Participating in  Iconic Days, where part of the team introduced the European partners of the PIPES project to notions from the fields of semiotics and design theory.

Reading groups for the discussion of texts related to the objective of the research.
Hosting the Art Matters seminars on art and materiality at Hangar, including one that was specifically dedicated to interfaces. Organising an  Interface Dictatorship Roundtable, with the participation of experts from new media, semiotics, design, politics and law, where progress was made in regard to understanding the complexity of the object of study of PIPES_BCN.

RAABLAB workshop, where Stella Veciana and Dan Norton used interaction strategies to help artists and scientists implement interconnected research practices. This workshop focused on research methodologies.

DIY Symbology: Make Your Own Symbols workshop with Genís Carreras, where participants reflected, through practice, on the subjectivity inherent to any design.

“Mixed experience: when “users” and “developers” make tools together” workshop with Femke Snelting and Open Source Publishing, where participants critically questioned how tools condition creative practice, and how users and developers can collaborate to improve software. As well as exploring the critical perspective, this workshop also looked at examples of open, participatory interfaces.

MEMBRANA Residency. An artist in residency programme was one of the key aspects of PIPES_BCN. Through an open call for participation,  César Escudero was chosen to collaborate on the Interface Manifesto and to participate in the research through his artistic practice.

BOOKSPRINT
The research project will conclude with a Booksprint: a working method that consists of collaboratively producing a publication over an intensive booksprint weekend.

A series of preliminary meetings have been held to prepare for the Booksprint and the Interface Manifesto. The first sessions consisted of internal work, to define the main lines of interest. The people collaborating in the Interface Manifesto were invited to the following sessions, where these lines were discussed and honed. For this stage, the Open Source Etherpad platform proved to be very useful.
For the Booksprint, we expect collaborators to have contributed a text, and that the main points of the Interface Manifesto will have been agreed upon, so that we can concentrate on defining the form of the interface of the Manifesto.

The research project has also been presented at, or participated in, events such as the  Free Culture Forum (Barcelona),  Art Matters International Conference (Barcelona), the #edcd 15 Digital Culture and Design Conference at Medialab (Madrid), and Siglo XXI Radio Nacional 2 radio programme, which allowed participants to share ideas and methodologies with other artists, designers, and academics.

19 Jan

¿La interfaz definitiva?

La idea de interfaz está desapareciendo, precisamente porque su diseño está evolucionando hacia un futuro de invisibilidad y gestualidad. La forma en la que mañana (literalmente) interactuaremos con muchas de nuestras máquinas será muy parecido a como actuamos con nosotros mismos: (casi) sin darnos cuenta.

Olia Liliana ya dijo en Complete Turing User que en el discurso de los diseñadores, la idea de usuario está siendo sustituida por la de persona, de modo que se naturaliza e integra al propio ser humano el uso de un dispositivo electrónico. La máquina desaparece del terreno simbólico para esconderse en el real.

No por haber menos superficie de contacto entre los aparatos y quienes los utilizan, las máquinas serán más inexistentes. Se busca su invisibilidad, y es en esta estrategia donde la caja negra -ahí donde tienen lugar muchos de los procesos que hacen útiles nuestros gadgets-, se cierra aún más en sí misma. A más invisibles sean nuestros smartphones u ordenadores, menos control tendremos sobre ellos. En los 90 la mayoría de ordenadores de sobremesa venían con instrucciones y un mapa de los circuitos para que quien quisiera pudiera desatornillar la torre, mirar qué había dentro, y jugar con sus componentes. Ahora, cuando abrimos el envoltorio de nuestro portátil (por no hablar de los “teléfonos”), lo que encontramos generalmente es una fragancia que nos recuerda que eso que hemos comprado es nuevo. Es parte de la “experiencia”. Parece que nuestros aparatos están cada vez más rodeados de halos de marketing y menos rellenos de tecnología que pueda sernos realmente útil. Más comodidad equivale a menor control, en todos los sentidos.

En caso de emergencia apretar el botón rojo

Podría decirse que de todas las interfaces tangibles, la más sencilla es el botón. Eso es lo que seguramente hayan pensado los desarrolladores de Button Corporation al presentar BTTN, un botón rojo que lo soluciona todo… Sí, como ese botón rojo que lanza los misiles, ese botón que sólo hay que tocar en caso de emergencia. O como escribe Morozov, ese botón en el que clicar para salvarlo todo.

BTTN es precisamente eso lo que busca, sintetizar toda la complejidad del Internet de las Cosas en su aplicación a la domótica. Ejemplos: un abuelo podrá usarlo para apagar las luces del comedor, el termostato, y activar la alarma de la casa antes de irse a dormir; o una familia encenderá la cafetera, abrirá las persianas y activará la tostadora al despertarse. Lo que provoque el botón dependerá de lo que quiera cada uno, porque lo que hace es ejecutar una serie de algoritmos (del tipo si aprieto el botón pasará esto, y luego esto, y luego esto) previamente programados por (alguno de) los usuario.

Sin duda es práctico, pero ¿qué sucede si cambia el orden de prioridades de las acciones? La cantidad de esfuerzo que separa el apretar un botón con reprogramar una serie de instrucciones es abismal. ¿Y si algo falla?  ¿Cuántos niveles de error puede tener una casa inteligente? ¿Cómo se soluciona? ¿De quién dependerá la reparación? ¿Cuánto tardará? ¿Podrá funcionar una casa inteligente sin sus automatismos? ¿Realmente existe la necesidad de automatizar aún más nuestras vidas?

El gesto como interfaz

Otro sueño de ciencia ficción hacia el que se encaminan nuestros dispositivos es el de ser controlados simplemente con gestos de la mano. Como los guantes que usaba Tom Cruise en Minority Repport, pero con la dosis extra de sofisticación que siempre trae la realidad, la empresa ThalmicLabs ha presentado recientemente Myo, una pulsera (o cinta de brazo como dicen ellos) de control gestual. En pocas palabras, lo que hace es, literalmente -la empresa lo promociona así- crear un dispositivo de interacción sin esfuerzo. No se necesitará un control para manejar el drone o el coche teledirigido; ni tocar ningún mouse ni pantalla para navegar en internet; o usar ningún botón para sacar fotos o videos.

Esto abre un nuevo espectro en la relación que tendremos con las máquinas. Es un paso más hacia una la integración del ser humano con las tecnologías digitales, y de nuevo, en la desaparición de la fricción, se desvanecerán esos pasos intermedios que nos recuerdan que estamos utilizando algo que puede ser problemático y que nos modifica.

Esto son cosas que están por venir. Mientras tanto, podemos ir clicando en este botón mágico para ver si conseguimos arreglarlo todo.

11 Jan

PIPES theoretical framework

During the Art Matters International Conference we had the opportunity to talk about our project. Here we’re sharing a part of our participation on the conference, when we focused on the theoretical framework of PIPES.

So any investigation of code, software architectures, or interfaces is only valuable if it helps us to understand how these technologies are reshaping societies and individuals, and our imaginations.

                                  Lev Manovich (in a Rizhome interview)

When we started the research we began to think about data, visualization and interface. What we had clear, as Laia Said, was that a highly critical perspective should be central. Each one of us comes from different backgrounds: cultural and visual studies, design, art or sociology, which has created an interdisciplinary point of view.

Having decided that our path will follow the interface manifesto as a goal, we began a theoretical research with the aim to settled it’s basis, reading and discussing several texts.

Representation

The first to come out was interface as a representation: assuming that they are based on other media as print or film, which metaphors are used more frequently? Some symbols have changed but some others have crystalized. Interfaces are dynamics, and their shape is in constant change. In this point Media Studies, semiotics or aesthetics, and concretely Lev Manovich, Bertelsen & Pold or Catalá were central.

Infrastructure – networked object

Then we went deeper. Interfaces are becoming ubiquitous, and they have become a universal language to relate to reality, affecting our public and private activities. They are social, psychological, economic and political unnoticed infrastructures, and many things are happening there. As a networked object, interfaces are fields where different actors and interest collide, not without conflict: Protocols, coding languages, standards, aesthetic trends, physical networks, designers, programmers, companies or users, dialogue in a constant flow. Obviously, Burno Latour was a must on this new materialistic point of view, and we’re researching, departing from here, in Actor-Network Theory and Science and Technology Studies.

Black – box: software studies

Interfaces have a great agency power. As black boxes or -as Fuller & Goffrey assets on Evil Media- obscurely grayed-out zones, interfaces hides their processes, and doing so, they embody choices and worldviews where power is rooted and displayed. In this point, perspectives from Software and Media Studies were extremely useful.

Interfaces don’t hide just their functioning, but also themselves. As we learnt from Olia Liliana among other authors related to art and design, there’s a curious paradox: as computers are becoming more and more present in our lives, there are growing attempts to create computerless illusion (Tools are becoming a nuissance, something that’s clear when thinking on augmented reality applications or wereables: the machine does everithing for us, painless and effortlessly).

Nevertheless of this illusion, interfaces are now more than ever fields of data collection. Our performing on screen provides quantifiable test data, which is exploited, to better understand users or improve interfaces. As Fuller & Goffrey asset: “It is perhaps uncertain just how far behaviour has been transformed into economics”.

 

Behavioural labs

Indeed, interfaces have become behavioural labs, but experimental subjects are unaware humans. Here, sociology helped us understand how important are users when thinking on interfaces. As Liliana says, this word is disappearing from designers discourse, preferring to talk about people. General Computer User is perceived as some whose not interested on the tool but on the results, and in this sense, the ideal subject of design reaches it’s materiality on interfaces.

But interfaces don’t follow just one road. We learnt from a virtual ethnography research on Drupal community, which are the social dynamics of the interface as a collaborative space, and how do it’s members act, negotiate and relate each other to build a very competitive service.

Last, interfaces become highly visible or even exotic on net or digital art or videogames, where the creator’s intention is to maximize computer experience. As Liliana says, user must be empowered as workers were empowered on XIXth century, and for those, they should be aware of their role.

 

 

 

 

11 Jan

PIPES @ Art Matters Conference

At the end on 2014 PIPES team took part of the Art Matters International Conference, performed in Barcelona during 11th and 12ht of December. We were part of a session entitled “Intangiibles: algorithms and interfaces”, and we shared panel with collegues Olivers Spall (Goldsmiths College) who talked about “Algorithm as artwork, artwork through algorithm“; Samantha Penn (University of London, Goldsmiths), Juan Pablo de la Vega (University of London, Goldsmiths) who are researching about “The exhibition as an interface: how might software studies affect the way we think about encounters with art?“; and Moisés Mañas Carbonell (Universidad Politécnica de Valencia), Marina Pastor Aguilar (Universidad Politécnica de Valencia), who focused on a analysis of Zombie Media idea, under the title  “Zombie media. Disección, regeneración y reparación, agentes para la fabricación de sistemas lúdico- tecnocráticos”.

Laia Blasco, Andreu Belsunces and Clara Piazuelo from PIPES discussed about the work in progress of the project, describing the different partners involved, it’s objectives, research methodology, activites, networks, and tools. We also have depicted our theoretical framework from three combined perspectives: disciplines + authors + ideas. Finally, we presented the process of creation of the critical interface manifesto, highlighting some related manifesos, explaining the reasons of why we have decided to work in a manifesto as a format, spotted some of the points we’re begging to explore as a first draft of the manifesto, and talked about the final results expected.

Here you can display the slides of our presentation.

 

 

 

 

25 Nov

Mixed experience: when ‘users’ and ‘developers’ make tools together by Femke Snelting & OSP (Open Source Publishing)

Following the aim to explore the landscape between ‘users’ and ‘developers’ on digital tools, PIPES_BCN organized on November 7th a mixed experience inviting people prom Constant, a Brussels’ based association for Arts and Media, and design caravan OSP, in the framework of the Free Culture Forum.

The workshop reflected on the necessity of shift out our digital practices away from the pressures of meritocracy and the limits of the technocentrism, and the need to make tools together.

Participants were diverse, coming from graphic or fashion design, art, architechture, culture theory or activism. After the introductions, Femke Snelting from Constant, highlighted that design can be regarded as a strategy driven by tools which must be considered: they somehow channel experiences and expectations, and they condition the way we work. In this sense, Femke said, when we speak about tools we’re also talking about interfaces, so we have to blur the line between them.

After displaying this first thoughts, pals from Open Source Publishing Gijs De Heij and Eric Schrijver presented Visual Culture, a tool / interface that comes from the world of programming to share and publish any design project with the possibility to see and retrieve any previous version. Visual Culture provides an archive, a tool to publish and a tool to collaborate and share based on Git versioning software.

In this online software, each project is explained and each step is recorded, so a biography of those projects is built, basing future conversations. Through Visual Culture people can share their creative process on the web instead of taking it for itselfs. Knowledge is shared and exchanged, because it invites participants to create open source projects, so everyone can download it.

Saying so, the Tool Parade was launched, focusing on three different tools:

  1. Etherpad-to-graphviz, a collaborative graph visualization tool developed by OSP, where nodes (concepts, ideas, people, etc.) are linked to each other in different ways.
  2. html2print, also developed by OSP, is a little tool to start a print project using HTML, less/CSS and Javascript/Jquery to design it.
  3. Feed-to-be-fed comes from a streaming project where multiples images were uploaded by different users and displayed on a screen in public space, creating a public animation. Doing so, a narrative without hierarchy was built.

Participants separated in groups that tried and reflected on this tools according to their interests. The team that used etherpad-to-graphviz tried to represent a conversation between persons. As it works with coding language, they learnt the amount of layers between people and machines, and realized that average people don’t use the same languages as machines.

The second team worked on html2print, a tool that links web and print which can display text, code raw and print format. Using this, they tried to answer some of the questions setted for the workshops (as: is this a tool or an interface? How do you use it, or would you want to use it? Who has made this tool/interface, and why? among others). Team concluded that there’s a change on design: print design thinks on a static canvas, thinking first on a space and then organizing it. On web content is more fluent, and the design is thought taking in account dynamic issues. Similar to this software, OSP developed Ethertoff, a simple collaborative web platform, much resembling a wiki but featuring realtime editing thanks to Etherpad. Its output is constructed with equal love for print and web. Based on this, there’s an other software avaliable at f-u-t-u-r-e.org where users can change design and content and printing it in pdf.

Regarding to Feed-to-be-fed, the participants talked about the tool as an open interface where people can collaborate in real time uploading videos from it’s computer, creating a collaborative work settled in the public space.  During the conversations, several points related to the future interface manifesto appeared.

14 assumptions about interfaces

  • What if we could work/thing with the tool? What if we could dialogue with the tool?
  • If you don’t realize the presence of the tool, you’ll even think about it.
  • Interfaces are part of out technobiography, are part of the way we live with tecnhnology.
  • We should interrogate tools (and interfaces): ask different things to different tools.
  • Some interfaces might have instruction manual to show it’s performance and to enable user to modify it.
  • Can all the interfaces be seen under the same ethical light? Should we classify them in different types? (i.e. communication vs creation interfaces).
  • Averages users could say: Knowing is trouble, not knowing is bliss.
  • We don’t want the tool to go away, not to make it INVISIBLE. We want the tool to be part of the world, not a bridge to “reality”. The tool is part of the reality.
  • Assuming that computers are here to stay, instead of make them “disappear”, how to have a more natural wanted foreground vs unnatural unwanted background.
  • Internet’s has agency power on people: always connected, always uploading, faster.
  • Thinking on transparency and honesty of interfaces: there is a lot of decisions we take every time, we cannot see ALL, do ALL, deal with ALL, so it’s much more about what we CHOOSE.
  • Regarding internet GUI: It was very interesting to see how HTML teaching became a way to professionalize, so students accepted learning html as an standard.
  • There are some examples of transparent interfaces: Inkscape, Laidout.
  • Commercial products shape the way professional interfaces should look: Gimp has to look “professional” so it becomes a stokolm sindrom to look like photoshop.

IMG-20141126-WA0007

22 Sep

Art Matters Seminars Discusses the Idea of Interface

In the framework of PIPES BCN research, the 1st of July Hangar hosted an Art Matters Seminar focused on interfaces, the research issue of the project. In this occasion, besides of the usual attendees we had an special guest: Jorge Luís Marzo, exhibition curator, writer and lecturer at the Bau University School.

After the traditional presentation of the seminar and the attendees introduction, Jorge sugested that devices should turn into interfaces: there is a need that machines could socialize with each other and people, and added that now there is an independence of the (TV) screen, because screens are everywhere.

Regarding to this, other of the participants introduced the idea of relational spaces from social scientist and geographer Doreen Massey, to highlight the space where humans and not humans relate. Following this path, seminar leader Pau Alsina added that there is a relation between the material and the symbolic, and explained that the concept of infrastructure from Bruno Latour is very useful to attend this.

In fact, as Pau clarified, one of the seminar aims is to fight the perspective of researching things (as art, etc.) regardless of their ability of agency. Thinking about interface, some authors placed the software in the center of the analysis (Manovich, i.e). In a  similar way, the essay Interface Criticism: Aesthetic Beyond Buttons, Christian Ulrik Andersen and Soren Bor Pold (as editors) attempts to enter into the interface, thinking about it not just as a mere surface in which political and social conditioning bounce, but as a society articulator.

Another participant added that there is a need of artistic practices questioning these phenomena. The devices are sociability producers, a trigger for social behaviours, and STS studies can help to understand which are the processes through which this standards crystalize. The interface should not be explained but is the explanation, which conveys.

Some authors sharing this point of view are Mathew Fuller, crossing cultural studies with software studies, or Michel Callon, an engineer and sociologist. The actor-network theory and relational materialism are useful perspectives to understand the interface as a complex phenomena, given that they understand technosciencies as a net that includes both human and non-human entities, heeding to the associations between them.

A good example of the success of certain technologies from this approach is the coding language Processing. It has become so popular and used because it has been developed for artists to artists, and has opened a new field of accessible creativity that can be translated from the art field to the industry, and where creators, technologist, coders or scientists can converge.

Building a Manifesto

One of the goals of PIPES BCN is to write an Interface Manifesto. Talking about that, Jorge Luís Marzo said that images may not represent the reality but hide it (as happens in the film The Matrix). The texts are disappearing and being replaced by icons or images full of meaning (Twitter bird, for example, or F by Facebook).

Nowadays, societies live dazzled by the new gadgets and technological services provided by the industry, there’s a technophilic layer that can bring to technical nihilism. We enjoy the latests technologies, but where is the responsability? There can be pointed just one actor?

In the case of interface, what is important is not just the object, but the function of this object in a certain context. This is the argument that defends the article An Introduction to Interface Phenomenology from Josep M. Català. Interface translates more than mediates (mediate has a friendly connotation), and it only exists when there is a need for dialogue. Interfaces are part of our lives, and despite the wide variety of devices, they tend to the homogenization and standarization. Related to technology, there has always been a search for universal languages and standards. The screws are an example, as well as internet protocols.

In technology there’s no neutrality, although there certainly is an illusion of it. It’s stories are bounded to the idea of progress, and preconceptions of human being or ideas related to power are embodied in those objects and the practices they enable. When talking about interface, it seems to be a request coming from users: give me buttons. The designers or engineers of our washing machines, radios or computers seem to say: just press the button and we do the rest. Here are clearly a number of preconceptions that shows us that the dichotomy between active subject and passive object is completely obsolete.

25 Aug

PIPES: A first collaboration experience between Hangar and UOC

Recently, Mosaic has published an article about PIPES as a first collaboration experience between Hangar and UOC.

The article, entitled “Research, creation and interdisciplinarity for an Interface Manifesto” (in spanish), deepens in the content and activites of PIPES, and explanes which are the aims and expectations of both UOC and Hangar in this new mutual project.

25 Aug

Hugo Roy interview @ Mosaic magazine

As part of the collaboration between Hangar and UOC, Mosaic magazine, an online publication created on the framework of Multimedia Degree and Multimedia Apps Masters of UOC, has published an interview to Hugo Roy.

Mosaic focuses on the link between interaction, design, web, apps and videogames developing, and therefore is interested in the issues worked in PIPES.

Hugo Roy’s interview (in spanish) is related to its participation to the Interface Dictatorship Roundtable, and reflects on the terms and conditions of the services we use in internet.

28 Jun

Iconic Days videos

Iconic Days was a three days symposium held in the framework of PIPES, dedicated to iconic communication in theory and practice. It that took place between the 11th and the 13th of March in Prague Centre for Contemporary Art DOX.

Michael Bielický from ZKM (Germany) made a historical approach to symbols as a way to simplify the communication, and presented some contemporary projects related to this.

Read More

21 Jun

Interface Dictatorship materials

As part of participation in the roundtable, speakers provided a range of materials to deepen the theme of the interface as a space of power. Then you can consult the presentations shown during the discussion and the texts written by the speakers for this occasion.

Mayo Fuster

Interface Dictatorship (Governance) – Presentation

Digital Interaction: Online Creation Communities – Text Read More

logos1


HANGAR Emilia Coranty 16 E-08018-Barcelona Tel. +34 933 084 041 | Fruitful theme by fruitfulcode Powered by: WordPress