A Rhetorical Theory for Computers and Other Mundane Artifacts

By: Robert R. Johnson

User-Centered Technology

Chapter One

Users, Technology, and the Complex(ity) of the Mundane: Some “Out of the Ordinary” Thoughts

From Politica by Aristotle

“…the user, or, in other words, the master, of the house will even be a better judge than the builder, just as the pilot will judge better of the rudder than the carpenter, and the guest will judge better of the feast than the cook.”

Purposes of the bookFocus on everyday users of technologyRaise issues and ask questions about

technologyReflect on interactions with technologyDevelop theory through user-centered

conceptsEngage with social, ethical, and political

arguments in relation to technology

Key Terms (Chapter One)

MundaneUsersUser-centeredKnow-howCultural ambianceTechnique

Without a voice…

Going back to the quote from Aristotle at the beginning of the chapter, we must realize that the user’s voice is an important one.

Johnson is attempting to use the art of rhetoric to awaken users to enter into a dialogue about technology.

User-centeredDraper and Norman describe it like this:

“The emphasis is on people, rather than technology, although the powers and limits of contemporary machines are considered in order to know how to take that next step from today’s limited machines toward more user-centered ones.”

User-centered (continued)

Johnson wants to take it a step further by placing the study of user-centered technology into a historical context. (Think: Aristotle)

Cultural AmbianceAll artifacts are affected by the social

sphere, the cultural ambiance, thus making technological artifacts and systems dependent upon, instead of autonomous of, human intervention.--Staudenmaier

(Notes, Page 12)

“Black Box” Point of View“Computer users, thus, are more often

viewed as idiots who must have technologies “dumbed down” to their level, a level that has no knowledge of its own—only that knowledge that is handed down by those who made the object in question.” (Page 13)

Chapter Two

Refiguring the End of Technology: Rhetoric and the Complex of Use

Key Terms (Chapter Two)

EndComplex of UseInterfaceRhetoricSystemUser-FriendlyUser’s Situation

Prometheus and FireJohnson uses a mythological reference

to illustrate the meaning of ends by relating the story of Prometheus’ gift of fire to mankind. He emphasizes the user-centered approach the titan used by showing the humans how to use his gift to harness nature for their desired ends. (Page 18)

He essentially gave them the power of technique (ways of making) and the technology (artifacts that come from the making)

Rhetoric…Good or Evil?Often times, rhetoric has the negative

connotations of “empty words” or “ the use of language to deceive”

A positive and powerful definition of rhetoric is “the art of creating (inventing), arranging, and delivering language for the purpose of evoking action upon the part of an audience

The main difference in the two definitions is based upon the perceived ends desired by the rhetor. Hence, the end of rhetoric as art is in the hearer.

The dichotomy of technologyIn school we are taught that technology

offers great solutions that help us avoid hardships and make our world “what it is today.”

We also read works that warn about the dangers technology can pose to us through works of fiction and nonfiction.

Johnson argues that this dichotomy is “reductive and simplistic,” but worth exploring.

Technological Paradox

“We are enamored of the things that technology can promise, but we simultaneously live in fear of the power that unchecked growth and dissemination of technology has over our lives. We want technology to help us get where we want to go, but we feel uncomfortable if we are unable to control the direction and speed of the journey.” (Page 20)

Questions this paradox raises:How is this [having a hand in the

direction and speed of technology] possible?

How can individuals or small communities have an effect upon the growth of technology—those technologies that we see as getting out of control or moving beyond reasonable limits?

Neglectful ends of technology1. The interest of the developers

who hope to gain from it,2. The interest of the disseminators

who likewise hope to reap the fruits of its success,

3. Those who develop and then release a technology into the public sphere with little or no concern about its end whatsoever.

Proposed ends of technologyJohnson proposes that the end of technology shift its focus to the user: those humans (virtually all of us) who interact with various technologies on a daily basis in our public and personal lives.

Another important note on users

“Users, being human, operate in a world where things are constantly “coming into being.” Thus technologies must be described or explained through a lens of contingency, probability, and/or mutability that accounts for shifting contexts and situations.” (Page 24)

The System-Centered Model of TechnologyThe artifact or system is primary.Developers know its design,

dissemination, and intended use best.The technology, the humans, and the

context within which they reside are perceived as constituting one system that operates in a rational manner toward the achievement of predetermined goals.

The System-Centered Model of Technology (continued)It is so embedded in our ways of thinking

about technology that sometimes user-centered design approaches are actually formulated from system-centered ideologies.

See figure 2.2, page 30The user is required to acquire a “user’s

model”No role for the designer after the initial

development of the system (Page 29)

Users’ role in system-centered approachAncillary or nonexistant: the system is the

source and ultimately the determiner of all.The designer goes through the process of

prototyping which results in an artifact reflective of the designer’s image of the system.

The interface between user and artifact is often addressed at the end of development when little can be adjusted.

User-centered questions:What tasks will the user be performing

within the given situation?How would the user represent these tasks

within that situation?Are the tasks visible in the situation of use?Can the users see what they are doing or

are the tasks hidden behind an opaque or clumsy interface?

The User-Centered View of TechnologyArgues for the user as an integral,

participatory force in the process and placing the user at the “center” of the model.

Surrounding the user: Interface, Artifact/System, Designers’/Artisans’ Image, User’s Situation.

Users are active participants in design, development, implementation, and maintenance of the technology, but aren’t the sole or dominant forces. They merely are offered the opportunity to take part in a negotiated process of design, development, and use.

The User-Centered View of Technology (continued)Technology is created through a process of

“give and take” that places users on a par with the developers and the system itself: a space within which users and developers can learn to value each other’s knowledge and accept the responsibilities of technological design and development in new, shared ways.

Work cited

Johnson, Robert R. User-Centered Technology: A Rhetorical Theory for Computers and Other

Mundane Artifacts. Albany: SUNY Press, 1998.