Contact:cdent@burningchrome.com
Suchman, L. (1987). Interactive Artifacts. In _Plans and Situated
Actions_ (p. 5-26). New York: Cambridge University Press.
(Read for L592, Dillon)
Suggests computers as interactive artifacts, not things that are used,
by decoding the nature of interaction, how humans conclude they are
interacting, and what aspects of computers display interaction.
Computer appear to have intention. Two forms of intention are
discussed: intention from the designers standpoint (this tool was
built by someone with a purpose), intention from the computer itself
(this tool is trying to do something, it has a purpose).
-=-=-
The computer appears to be an intentional machine because it shares
some features with humans. According to Suchman
it is in part our inability to see inside each other's heads, our
mutual opacity, that makes intentional explanations so powerful in
the interpretation of human action...The overall behavior of the
computer is not describable, that is to say, with reference to any
of the simple local events that it comprises...To refer to the
behavior of the machine, then, one must speak of "its"
functionality. And once reified as an entity, the inclination to
ascribe actions to the entity rather than to the parts is
irresistible.
Humans have a way of communicating that allows them to stop in moments
of communicative confusion and say, "excuse, what are you getting at?"
Some computer designers believe that by developing this skill in
computers there will be a greater perception of intelligence in the
computer.
If it is opacity which inspires intentional explanations, then
increasing opportunities for explanation suggests an increase in
opacity. That is bad. If the computer were a partner in an interactive
dialog, if the computer were a partner with a shared knowledge and
language, it could be good. That is not the case. Intentional
explanations between humans works out because opacity exists with the
individual and there is a shared knowledge space existing outside the
two or more humans involved. That shared knowledge is what is used to
reach clarity. A computer is not a human, it is a tool. Clarity can be
reached in a much more direct fashion by exposing the tool, making it
clear in the first place.
Back to the Index