r3

What is interface?

"Interface is a mediating structure that supports behaviors and tasks."

"It is a space between human users."

"An interface is a space in which a subject not a user is invoked."

"The space between" the term itself leaves it open to interpretations, which may be what Drucker is driving home- not solely as form or display or consumption, but the interpretation, the process, the procedures, the act of, is interface. The rest is quite simply vehicles, structures, methods, forms, display, etc. where both are required for true knowledge transfer. This felt counterintuitive, perhaps by way of popular expression I assumed interface to be a thing that I as a user, or as Drucker states, subject, interacted with rather than the interaction with a display by a subject.

The synthesis of the design process with humanism is a glitchy one. When industry drives need, and process drives product, the human, user, subject- is often an afterthought. Our existing digital displays, task-oriented and behavior-driven, full of expectations and assumptions, influenced more by engineering than art or people, have a continuity and consistency almost by default. 960px960 of one-dimensional digital space can only represent so much, while still remaining true to its form and limitations. But as we migrate into new mediums- which industry shows we have, and Drucker concludes will only escalate- will playing catch up suffice? Will turning needs into requirements and tasks into deliverables drive design and production? Will we eventually be at the mercy of what we've created, which Drucker seems to think is not impossible. She further notes, "We have to imagine the design of a situation of sustained activity, a series of events." What makes for good HCI, HCD, UX? These terms used to express the need that at the center of any product, device, interface is a person- a subject- and that they have been accounted for successfully. But how to quantify qualitative characteristics, methodologies, needs? What does it look like, or feel like, to have invoked human-centered design successfully? Our preconceived notions of what currently implies good design within the digital realm may point towards success, but the sustainability of that design should it need to adapt to be or evolved into a new space- augmented reality, perceived sensors, audio- as well as existing limitations of policy, law, or resource, more than likely suggest otherwise.

An article published in FastCo Design claimed that Data Ethnographer is "the most crucial design job of the future" for many of the reasons Drucker has presented us with as current challenges that need consideration.

Defined as the study of the data that feeds technology, looking at it from a cultural perspective as well as a data science perspective. Data ethnography is a narrower, but no less crucial, field: Data is a reflection of society, and it is not neutral; it is as complex as the people who make it.

The job of a data ethnographer, then, would be to ask questions like: What is the culture of a data set? How old is it? Who made it? Who put it together? When was it updated–has it ever been updated? The ethnographer could then test data and label it, much in the same way that food labels break down nutritional contents. Consumers could then see data sets labeled like “social media data, Twitter, 2021, U.S., 75% male users ages 35-40, 50% white.”

The uncertainty of the future state of things, what will "interface" look and feel like, and if 90% of the data we have access to has been collected over the last few years, what does that mean for the future of storage, access, interpretation and understanding the qualitative elements of data snapshots?

The responsibility of data ethnographers is a large one, and perhaps for that reason alone I want to believe that Drucker is encouraging all of us to be data ethnographers. If the knowledge lifecycle is keeping some kind of shared memory from which to draw, what then if access becomes limited, not simply for policy reasons, but medium evolution, sustainability of form and function? Who is to say that collective shared data memory doesn’t end up dusty and useless as every cd collection.

When Drucker describes the work of Dunne and Raby, Garnet Hertz, and Matt Ratto as designing interface to be catalysts for social change, but brings up "the real challenge is conceptualizing the spaces of interfaces that engage humanistic theory.” As we evolve into new mediums, she notes, everything is a derivative. Most mediums were created out of industry need or market consumption. Essentially everything is a work in progress, an iterative process whether recognized as such or not. These fragmented pieces, perhaps congratulations to marketing or ignorance or optimism- are often perceived as complete, and perhaps in the purpose they serve they are. But Drucker touches on the notion that as new mediums are devised and we evolve interface design and production, the focus shifts from "product" to "process", that an "interface meant to support the activity of interpretation, rather than to display finished forms, would be a good starting point." She further believes that our ability to evolve our computational and digital environments" will never outpace our "ability to articulate the metalanguages of our engagement." Which seems like a no brainer. But facial recognition technology, sensory activated devices, artificial intelligence, and other emerging technologies are already blurring lines between interface, subject, display and form. It seems the mission is to answer Drucker’s lingering question: "what kind of interface exists after the screen goes away?"