Norman, D. (2007). The design of future things. New York: Basic Books.
"Machines have less power than humans, so they have more authority" (p. 3)
When I first read this line in the book, I had to pause and think. How could machines have less power, yet more authority? Indeed, the next word in the text is "Contradictory?", which is exactly what I was thinking. On to the dictionary definitions of 'power' and 'authority':
Power: ability to act or produce an effect; possession of control, authority, or influence over others
Authority: power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior
In other words, because machines have less 'ability to act or produce an effect', and 'less possession of control' (after all, we can choose to ignore machines, or simply turn them off), they have greater 'power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior'. There is no room for the 'maybe' or 'partway' responses, or even negotiation that we are able to give in human to human interactions. The example of driving on the California highways helped to clarify the statement - Norman was able to reason with his wife, therefore he was able to exert more power in the situation. Unlike interactions with machines, where, with their greater authority, they are able to exert more power in situations - it's this way or no way is often what we are faced with. Which I suppose leads nicely into the next quote that caught my attention:
"Socrates's point is valid: a technology that gives no opportunity for discussion, explanation, or debate is a poor technology" (p. 6).
When machines have greater authority, as in the discussion above, they leave no room for discussion or explanation. Perhaps this is what Norman is suggesting as we move toward the 'rise of the smart machine' and 'a natural, symbiotic relationship': we need to some how build the 'power' into our machines so that the 'authority' between machines and humans is shifted more in favour of humans. It is frustrating to come up against a machine that wields authority and allows no room for negotiation ... in this case I'd like to turn the machine off.
This discussion makes me think of a clever invention my brother recently crafted (although I'm not entirely certain that it is legal!). Background: in his vehicle, there are sensors in the seats that detect whether or not there is a passenger - if a weight is detected, then the vehicle assumes that there is a passenger in the seat. In which case, the seatbelt alarm goes off repeatedly, warning the passenger to buckle up. Unfortunately, even a bag of groceries or a small dog is considered to have sufficient weight to constitute 'passenger' in the vehicle's system. The alarm sounds repeatedly, much to the annoyance of the driver, who, understandably, is reluctant to buckle up the milk or the dog.
The solution: a simple plastic fob, fashioned after the seat belt buckle that clicks nicely into the seat belt receptacle. In this case, the machine was exercising considerable authority with its insistence that 'passengers' buckle up. I was pleased to see the way in which my brother exercised his power to neutralize the vehicle's authority!
No comments:
Post a Comment