{"id":643,"date":"2019-10-25T17:18:21","date_gmt":"2019-10-25T17:18:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/digital.eca.ed.ac.uk\/sonicstructures\/?p=643"},"modified":"2019-10-30T11:31:25","modified_gmt":"2019-10-30T11:31:25","slug":"lecture-07-interface","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/digital.eca.ed.ac.uk\/sonicstructures\/2019\/10\/lecture-07-interface\/","title":{"rendered":"Lecture 07: Interface and devices of control"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"\/<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Some of these notes originally produced by Owen Green:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Preamble<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

What do we mean by ‘interface’?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It’s easy to collapse the idea to just being about knobs and dials but this approach misses a lot and is prone to produce slightly disappointing results. Whilst the bulk of this session is going to revolve around practical demonstrations of getting data from the outside world in to MAX, it is important that we first take the time to think properly about what it is we are trying to achieve with our interfaces \/ interfacing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Function & Affordance<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\"tech1\"<\/a><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

The orthodox conception of technology assumes a simple, static model where technologies represent functions in an uncomplicated way. By this account the ‘interface’ is just something that mediates our actions and be judged more or less successful in how it enables one to perform some function. This model only really works for relatively simple cases: by and large the notion of what function a technology performs simply isn’t so clear cut (especially for things like musical instruments).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"tech2\"<\/a><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

One way of approaching the richness of the topic beyond simply knobs and dials is through the concept of affordances<\/em>, which come from James Gibson’s work developing an ecological account of perception. Affordances give us a more sophisticated idea of what something is supposed to do<\/em> by highlighting that what something can be used for is actually a function of the relationship<\/em> between a organism, an object and wider environmental factors (including the autobiography of the organism). For instance, a chair affords sitting to us humans because its shape and our shape make this an evident possibility but also<\/em> because we have a personal and cultural history of chairs being things to sit on. To a woodworm, the affordances are wholly different.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By this account, interface takes on a much more dynamic role as something that arises between<\/em> a person and a thing: what this thing seems able to do is shaped in part by its actual physical characteristics but also by our curiosity, desires and sense of possibility. This recalls a concept of intra-action<\/em> developed by the theorist-physicist Karen Barad:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n