Tuesday 5th April 2016 -- 14:00
Slowly moving towards a broader consideration of interface and black boxing. Was the clarity I was calling for just a result of logical development following a method of boxing tools & utilities up? Are these boxes in a chain sequence or is it more organic? Where do I, the user, stand in this sequence?
The 'necessity' for such a system is clear, I'm glad one does not have to run each intricate item and dependency when executing a task. This model is not flawed or even really broken in any way. I'm looking at a logical consequence of this modeling: it's opaqueness. (Looping back to this seems terribly logical. It is suddenly quite a simple point to be looking at my research from, but anyway.)
I'm putting aside the moralistic and fearful opinions I have voiced between the start of the year and now, in order to concentrate on projects that might generate discussion / opinions for the audience it self.
In attempting to answer the question around the structure or sequence of the black boxes scheme, I collected a few examples of attempts of visualisations:
then I tried a few more basic ones, to actually see if I could draw out what I thought I knew
I understand why these technologies are boxed up, and why these boxes must exist. I am fine with them, but understanding their sequence, and where I stand in their chain could be valuable.
So I started to look at the spaces between the boxes. Leverage points. Friction points, where it might be possible to insert objects (prototypes) in order to reveal the structure.