Hallo Du!
Bevor du loslegst den Talk zu transkribieren, sieh dir bitte noch einmal unseren Style Guide an: https://wiki.c3subtitles.de/de:styleguide. Solltest du Fragen haben, dann kannst du uns gerne direkt fragen oder unter https://webirc.hackint.org/#irc://hackint.org/#subtitles oder https://rocket.events.ccc.de/channel/subtitles erreichen.
Bitte vergiss nicht deinen Fortschritt im Fortschrittsbalken auf der Seite des Talks einzutragen.
Vielen Dank für dein Engagement!

Hey you!
Prior to transcribing, please look at your style guide: https://wiki.c3subtitles.de/en:styleguide. If you have some questions you can either ask us personally or write us at https://webirc.hackint.org/#irc://hackint.org/#subtitles or https://rocket.events.ccc.de/channel/subtitles .
Please don't forget to mark your progress in the progress bar at the talk's website.
Thank you very much for your commitment!




======================================================================





Hello. Most people say the problem exists between keyboard and chair, but now to use it becomes too incomplete, and Dahlia will tell us all about it, so give you a warm round of applause. Yeah. Thank you very much. I'll try to be loud and quick. I'm an artist. I work on line since nineteen ninety five and already since 15 years. I also teach art and design online as well as interface design. I also keep Joe Cetus Archive and I write about Joe speeches and in general, about the web of the nineties. And more generally, I write about digital culture, digital art and digital folklore. And usually, when I say digital folklore, people think that I mean hechos humor. But this is not at all like this. What is meant with digital folklore? Other visual textual outdoor elements of cultures that emerged through emerged from users engagement with personal computer application starting from the last decade of the last century. So I mean, user culture and this time frame, when I say starting from the nineties, the life line timeframe is there to distinguish user culture from the glorious home computer culture to distinguish, but not to completely separate them from one another. I am also the coauthor of the Digital Folklore Rhythm, and this book is dedicated to the users, and it starts with the introduction that is entitled Do you believe the Do you believe in users? Let me please remind to you where this quote this question comes from. It comes from the legendary film Tron Nineteen Eighty two and this very important moment. I hope this is not a mistake. I'm just a compound interest program. I work at a savings and loan. I can't play these video games. You can't look like a natural athlete, a on me. Are you kidding? No, I don't. No check on Tebow, right? I get out of breath. Hey, look, you guys are going to make my use of Mr. Henderson very angry. He's a full branch manager. Right? Another religious, let's say. Welcome friend, but not here. Not like this. I don't even know what I'
m doing here. Do you believe in the users? Yeah, sure. If I don't have a user, then who wrote me. That's what you're doing. Was it a bit too wide? Could you hear the dialog here? This is the beauty of this moment is, of course, in the fact that this app, this program says user and means both developer and account manager. Yeah. And of course, the significance of the episode is also in the way the word use is pronounced with a great respect. Let's fly now to 2008 and listen to Don Norman. Don Norman, the father of Human-Centered Design, author of Design of Everyday Things, Design, The Future of Things, and all other important text about how things should be designed. One of the horrible words we use is users. I am on a crusade to get rid of the word users. I would prefer to call them people, people. Hmm. You know, we test people. What a strange thing we designed for people. We don't design for users. So don't. Norman does not believe in users, and he believes it's a horrible word. There are 25 years, a quarter of the century in between the episode and wrong, and this speech Don Norman gave in 2008, and this was really 25 years of this dome being degraded. And today it's usually used with with negative connotations. If we listen to them, the irritations of recent years of true to their words from the recent years, for example, money which the author of the language of the new media, one of the main irritations of the new media, he says in 2011, for example, how do we call a person who is interacting with digital media user no-Good and another theoretician, Janet moreI, is the pioneering interaction designer author of The Hamlet on the Holodeck. She writes in 2012, in the introduction to her new book Inventing the Medium uses a convenient but narrow and outdated like interface in director is someone who is not using the device but acting within the system. A user is seeking to complete immediate risk. Interact is engaged. Let's now listen to another big name, Edward. O
ften in some months ago at the conference, he said only two industries called the customers users illegal drugs and software. And this is. I hope I hope you are not agreeing with Edward off to with your applauses, because it's absolutely wrong to say to proclaim things like this, first of all, because users are not customers. And second, it's in general comparison with junkies. It's an evil rhetoric, as well as all other attempts to explain the word user go into pre-computer, so to say, pre-computer, regional history of the word user. And I'm talking about connotations like somebody who is unimportant, who is just using the who is maybe even addicted and passive, because indeed, the word user means an active position. I was very happy recently to find the text by Raymond Williams written actually more than 50 years ago. Raymond Williams is known for explaining a lot of terms, and it's a small ledger of the words to the general public. His most known book is key words, where he explains what six labor technology and other words mean. Also, consumers and customers. And in his previous Book of the Long Revolution, he also talks about consumers and with regret, he mentions. If we were not consumers but users, we might look at society very differently for the concept of use involves general human judgments. We need to know how to use things and what we are using them for, and also the effects of particular users on our general life. This is a very important explanation of the word to use. So somebody who knows how to use things and what they are used for. But the thing is that software industry and I.T. industry, the service providers don't really need users who know how they use things and what they're using it for. They need the customers and consumers. And so human bots whom they gently call people. That's why in the Facebook office, you can find notes like this. It's from the last year Christmas party. And that's why also a year ago, Jack Dorsey, the founder of Twitt
er and Foursquare, says, If I ever say the word user again immediately charge me with 240 dollars. He didn't say it in this little text. Of course, I allowed it to myself to make some fun or to make. It may be that the future generations do remember this this idea of the idea and software industry to see users as consumers and customers. And it is only half of the story which explains why a user is no good. Another thing is another reason is a general the mainstream paradigm of computer technology development, and that is invisible computer. Here we can come again to the to the normal. His famous prediction from 99 to the computer of the future should be invisible. Sorry. He said it the nine to nine to as an answer to the question why interfaces don't work, they don't work because they are interfaces and they should vanish and the computer of the future should be invisible as well. We know we live in the future. Yeah, computers are still distinguishable and marketable, but they are so much, not something you sit in front of anymore and forecasts for invisibility. They are so optimistic that some companies already allow themselves to put this prediction in the present tense curve, as Apple did it two years, one and a half years ago, and applied it to a particular piece of technology and said We believe the technology is at its very best when it's invisible, when you are conscious only of what you are doing, not the device you are doing it with with no, no, no, no, no. And now the last sentence, it's a more personal experience with technology that people have ever hit. I ask could do now to pay attention to the last sentence again, to the word experience, technology and people. And what this thing is for. So these are people, not users. This is technology, not computer. And this is experience, but not interface. It is because it happens now everywhere. If you read announcements of the conferences in interface design sphere and in I.T. in general, this words, they just
 cease to exist. They're replaced with other ones. And this happens. So technology instead of computer experience instead of interface and people instead of users and the field itself are step by step. We've got renamed. I mean, the field of interface design got a new name experience design. There is another neighboring field, which is designed by gamification gamification trend. Their users are addressed as gamers, and everything else is just an epic win. Yeah. And this is exactly the same tactic what we see here. So they're gamers, customers, consumers are the main thing, not users, because because the what was the word user is stays on the way of computer to become completely invisible. It destroys the illusion of computer closeness. But we we need to take care about this word because invisible because invisible user is more of an issue as an invisible computer. Computers can get as tiny as and invisible as wanted, but the users should stay visible because if this, if they're use this word, then they do. The existence of two classes of people, developers and users is also not there anymore, and this is how users can lose their right, their rights and opportunity to protect this rights and this rights are the right to demand the better software, the right to fail epically. The right to get your files back, the right to delete your files, and the fundamental right here, the right to see the computer. So that's what in a year ago I wrote in to say Turing complete user, where I ask this question What can be done to protect the term, the notion and existence of the user? What arguments can be found to stop Adam Norman's crusade? And how I can dispel left Manalich skepticism? What can we how can we what do we know about the user beside the opinion that it's no good to be one? There are two things to understand about the users and the history. One is that users were invented before the computers, not after not parallel to computers, but really prior the computers. All t
he important texts that you maybe ever read important text for the history of computing. They are, in fact, the history of the user. So the Earth like Vannevar Bush, league leader and and Gilbert and Alan and other authors at Xerox Parc, they all were imagined and users, first of all. And in this interim, complete use say and also fall in this history and the picture of user from the scientists scientists whose hands are free. Tudor and Gilbert's ideal user who is developing together with the computer or the lady with the royal typewriter as it was imagined, and Xerox Parc or children by Goldberg and Alan Key. And then further to the more and more modern views. And also, I said, important to know that they were imagined before. But maybe these are just sentiments, some facts that are not so important. What is really important that the users were emergent, they are free judgment of image and imagination. This picture is always projected on us and whatever this imaginations are, there is a constant and the constant is that the users are busy, always busy with something else. I have here quote from a quite a good book on interface design, and this is the advice to the to the developers how to think about the users. Very gentle, yeah. In fact, to the users. But the main thing is here that the users are those who are busy with something else. So users, the people who are not going to spend any thought on the computer at all, they are delegating repetitive tasks to the computer and also their delegates to draw the board in between the repetitive task and mature thought to the computer. This. Oh, yeah. Oh, this delegation for the U.S. is the most important thing. And of course, I understand that there are many hours a day then this delegation and automation, they are required and enjoyed, but times and all aspects of our life are computerized. This it's not possible to accept this visit with something else as a norm, as a default. That's why I suggest also on this assay to
 see another mode of user to have another picture, the user that was formed through three decades of just in general purpose technology to the needs to the general purpose user and general purpose user can write an article in their email client client. They can lay out their business card in Excel they can like without Facebook, they can tweet without Twitter. They can upload images without flicker. They can have online affairs outside of online dating services. They can make six second videos without Vine. They can shave without the web. They can shave in front of a webcam without shave me up. And they, of course, would be able to make selfies and to upload the selfies without nude Justin Bieber's Shorts Me app. This this users can be possibly also used to call universal users or Turing complete users as a reference to Universal Turing's machine. But whatever name I choose, the main thing I o the main thing I mean is the user who is able to achieve your goals without was able to achieve her goals without without respect to the primary goal of the software or the device that we know about the universal machine. That there is nothing one computer can do what another can't given enough time and memory, and the same goes to the Turing complete user. So there is nothing one user can do what another can't given enough time and respect. And in this is then important to understand that one of the this being a general purpose user is in fact and automate user experience. If you want to think in the user experience terms and in the terms of the use of the user experience design field. But what does it mean that for the software industry, for the services that are provided to us? Does it mean that to provide this experience, industry has to deliver and perfect tools or hold themself from improving existing tools? Of course not. The thing is that the idea of perfection should be addressed to the general purpose user. It should value users involvement and ambiguity in in softwa
re and interface design. Demands in gender ambiguous software is only one of the things that computer users can do. Only one of the steps to go further and to think about the rights that we can have and how we can protect them. I made an extension to the Turing Complete user is safe and there is a platform where you and I can demand rights now. So this is the form I demand the right to. If you made it, it will appear and your name will appear in comic songs, which is very important for me. As you could see, it's possible to discuss it, to upvoted, to downvote it. It's not a perfect discussion system at this moment that it has to be improved. It's in the state of collecting ideas at this moment, but we have a beautiful home button and when you click on it, so you are at. Home page where all this users user rights are listed at this moment, and they are quite different there on the different level of elaboration at this moment. So I tried now to group them at least a little bit, and here you can see there some something what could be called fundamental rights. And of course, for me this to see the computer difficult to advocate for it because users are convinced that good computers and invisible computer and I myself, I also don't demand huge computers and bulky screens or whatever. But I mean that computers should be visible. You should see the computer even if it's invisible. Yeah, you should know that there is a computer, and to see it is a precondition for asking the question What is this computer doing to own data? This I borrowed from user data manifesto. The great manifesto that also deals with the same issue How to Protect User Rights written by Frank Khalid Shaikh, the founder of ownCloud and there said seven other points. Read them that elaborate on it. Then there is, of course, to install free software on your own computer. Seen by many, as may be the only right that one would need, that free software is the answer to all the troubles. It's, of course, it m
akes sense. Of course, it would be different if our world would be a free software and world users would be more competent and more empowered. But still, there would be users and there would be developers, so we shouldn't stay on this level as users. We should go to another level of precision and demands. So, for example, to know wherever my hardware will run free software is, one user demanded. Or I think this was demanded by Brendan Hurrell, who was before here to participate in society without having to use a particular software device or corporate website. I think you see that its next level of thinking about how I can protect myself, what I can demand some demands are obviously courageous that come out from bad experience with software do not have my system made obsolete to ignore updates. Not to be interrupted by program. My data are not being converted. You know your uploaded GIF, but it became a JPEG. This is what the user was talking about to disconnect. This is now from experiences from the cloud. The users shout to disconnect to view offline, to securely delete my six year history, to actually delete my account. To be on Google, Apple and, for example, to look out. I think this lock out is a very elegant demand at this moment, and it's very meaningful and expressive. There is so much said about the right for privacy that humans, people or citizens should have. And of course, as citizens, we should demand privacy. But as computer users on another level. Yeah, you should demand the right to log out and then it's where it will. Then you can talk about the privacy. On another level, there are some rights that are quite discussed, so a lot of disagreement about it to get revenue, to get data stored in text format. To read source code. That's what really has to do with the users and their rights, and not this is not discussed. Then something like the right to a web browser to see the URL, to have a real keyboard, to use cable to resume where I left off to have 
a real key to. So yeah, to have a real keyboard. The copy and paste to pull. To reply all so are these are just caprices of the users or this essential freedoms. This is something what is discussed now at our platform. But the main thing here that the thought is provoked. Yeah, then what you think, what I can do and what computer can do. What was delivered to me as a usability feature and what I do not want to to give away and let me finish with the last one with the right to undo it was the first one in the system and it's now it still stays up there on the top. And I think we should really fight for it because of three reasons. First of all, the undo is one of not many generic. Comments and genetic cross application comments that are so important for design of ambiguous applications. Second, undo is a clear border in between the virtual and the real world, and soon you will want to find one and then remember that in real life, you can't undo. Yeah, it's easy. And the third is maybe a sentimental one is its historical significance. Undo was conceptualized in 1976. It marks the period then computers started to be used by people who didn't program them. So is the arrival of the real user and so-called naive user, and that was given to them users not to scare them away, to give them the right to make mistake. And yet, because there was an understanding that there is nothing one user can do what another country if they can undo. So please contribute and thank you for your attention. OK, thank you. There are two mikes lined up, Mike one, Mike two, Mike, three other questions. Number two, I wanted to really recommend your essay during complete user to the audience here. I read it, I think when Cory Doctorow recommended it, and Cory is also someone who's very concerned about the language that we use to talk about the people who interact with systems. And he's also concerned about the use of the word consumer, and he often likes to talk about an audience or about readers r
ather than a consumer. Also trying to put in the foreground the person who's actively dealing with the system. So I thought your essay was very exciting and raised many of the same exciting concepts about human creativity and intelligence. I wanted to ask if you were familiar with a site called Revealing Errors, which was created by my friend Marco Hill. And he's also concerned with making computers visible to people as a matter of showing power, relationships and technology. So he looks at errors that occur in computer systems as a way of getting people to think about who created the system. What does the system do? How can the system fail? What decisions and values are embodied in the system? Have you seen the review? No, but I know I memorized. But thanks. Yeah, thank you. Questions from the internets. Yes. No. Then number two? Yeah. And I think that I think that user interface and security are to a two parts of the same spectrum how people deal with machines and and you're talking about two incomplete user and that presupposes two incomplete interfaces. So and I think if you have stateful interfaces, a lot of the problems that you listed do not come up. For example, the right to lock out is only a that's only a problem because we have what interfaces I didn't stateful like. And if you have state transitions that are explicit, but you do not have a Turing complete interface that can do anything, yeah, you are right. You need state machine, for example, several screens and you can only switch between them. And the right to lock out is only an issue because people use, for example, cookies and do not build stateful interfaces. So and I think maybe the maybe there can be an explicit mathematical model of interfaces. And do you think that's possible like of interfaces that are usable without being too incomplete user, they are not confusing and that do not allow specific errors. I really don't see this contradiction of what you are trying to negotiate. I'm talking ab
out ambiguity and the power of user and the user's involvement and the end making decisions console small decisions, big decisions all the time you are talking about now the right. I think that this ambiguity can only come up if the computer provides sufficient and powerful language to have ambiguity. For example, if you have a simple interface, a push button, there is no ambiguity. It's either to be pressed or not to be pressed. So you don't have a complete user in that case, and you do not have confusion and you do not need any exclusive rights in regards to that button. But why should we now imagine this buttons if we are in the book where you can still have a useful interface while reducing its expressive power? You can have software that only allows to do user useful things without having, for example, contradictory states that so you could build a library that user interface widgets that don't confuse users. I think maybe let's talk about this later. Yeah, because. OK, number two. Thank you very much. I wanted to ask, what do you think about the relation between interfaces and using interfaces and the way human beings perceive the world and the way they work, the way they they perceive the world and the development of knowledge and relationship to objects in the world and reality in general? You mean the the what what do they have, what the effect they have on users? The interfaces, how the how they form the picture of the world? Yeah, they are. Oh, this is huge. The impact of the interface you know you've seen there. If you open the Justin Bieber app and see the picture of the world through this app, yeah, it is a it is a very small and beautiful world. Yeah, it is. But it's it's just the answer is huge. That's why there should be a lot of the look of conscious ness involved into creating software. OK. Thanks again, Olga, and thank you all.