Nake and Grabowski present many ideas to the reader. The most prevalent to me was the area of HCI (human computer interaction) and how semiotics is the secret language between humans and computers, with or without actively acknowledging it. The authors also point out that putting this into practice may allow for easier absorption of information. Whether it is artistic or educational, the user's relationship with the computer is based on aesthetics, almost directly correlating to the quality of the time the person is having with the machine.
There is a common theme within the article of the user prompting the computer to then later learn or expect a reaction to display the interface. Without the interface, the relationship between humans and machines becomes less intuitive. The interface has allowed us to test our ideas, display them, and rework them as needed. This applies to our own ideas but also to how we interact with the device itself. As the authors mention, “As a mental construct, the idea is clear. When it is externalized, vague parts or even flaws may show up”. In my professional world, this is user testing. Supplying the user with an idea, tool, new way of doing and testing its receptiveness. This may include natural flow, ease of use, accessibility, or just style. The authors later begin to press the importance of perception. The user could not care less about what the computer is doing with their inputs, but only about how those inputs change what they are experiencing on the interface. This is why semiotics are so important. There is a give and take approach where the computer gives constant feedback to the interface, and the user takes that to perceive what is shown. Without this constant feedback, the user will assume the computer is not receiving the information it is being given. A great example of this is loading signs and how the user receives this symbolic information as ‘One moment, we are completing a task’ without the need for words or sounds.
The authors conclude by comparing the experience one may have at an art gallery versus using a computer. This is an important comparison because it emphasizes the idea of what we engage with what we are drawn to. For the gallery it is a chosen piece of art, for the computer it is the interface. What makes digital media so different is that most of the time you will not engage in the same interface in the same order and timeframe as someone else. Your digital art experience is based on conditions set by you, something as simple as the brightness of the screen vs the unchangeable lighting in a museum.
I have always been very fond of the idea of human computer interaction outside of the artistic space. Reading about the different art examples used was a little abstract, which I find interesting because if I could interact with the examples I may have understood some of the points the authors were making a bit more. (Almost proving their point). Considering this was published around 2006, I agree with most of the things the authors discuss. However, we are not in a time where it is much more accessible for everyday people to build a computer, so the hardware is just as appealing as the software. Truly though, how much of the population is like that currently? Another thing I find interesting is why would we be concerned with that is happening behind the interface if it’s happening too fast for comprehension anyway. What is there to see if it’s not already displayed to the user vs the interface?
I find myself thinking about the idea of importance and being intentional about what you want the viewer or person experiencing your works to look at, at all times. I want whatever I decide to create to feel natural in the environment that it is offered in, so there is nothing pulling you out of that experience. Just as the authors mentioned, “In fact, semiotic analysis has exactly emphasized the point that the interface, considered something between two systems, largely disappears” and “The development has reached a point where the actual computing process almost disappear behind the interface”. This is by design. Take a movie theater for example, it is designed to have you as immersed in the film as possible; dark seats, low lighting, large screen, loud sound. If you are constantly reminded that you are using software and each step is broken down for you to see, or experience unnecessarily then it will ruin the aesthetic and does not allow the user or viewer to create an experience of their own.