Interface

For this week’s reading, there was a focus on interface, and how that effects rhetoric. All authors gave their own opinions on the matter in different instances, but all focuses were around the user. Selfe(s) makes the argument that through the interface user utilize in the classroom, it can be both detrimental and beneficial, specifically for those that fall into a misrepresent scope like “race, gender, socioeconomic status” (pg. 484). Drucker’s focus is on the GUI and how that limits the user through its boundaries. Following this, I moved onto Wysocki, and her continuing argument against the split of form and content. Her explanation leads the reader to understanding that interfaces are inherently rhetorical. Furthermore, Buck, like Selfe(s), highlights the student when considering the interface, and its relation to an educational settings. She gives an analysis of a case study involving students in a tutor session actively participating with a computer. Moving on to both Arola and Gallagher, who seemed to tackle the interface as a template, and what that truly means when one is trying to understand the appropriate means on rhetorical communication.

            I became interested in The Politics of the Interface: Power and Its Exercise in Electronic Contact Zones because of Selfe(s) explanation of marginalized individuals when considering the challenges that were places in their interactions with any type of interface. This became all too familiar when introduced to a very non-virtual experience of political and ideological example of colonialism. These issues had then set the foundation for difficulties students face when interacting with any interface. I often think about accessibility when looking at technology, and how that effects those exemplified in this group. Especially now, when public schools are handing out laptops with the expectation of students and parents to have more than a basic understanding of, not only the hardware/software, but of the interface that is projected through various apps and platforms. The term “technological underclass” (pg 484) has made it clear how important it is for the educational system to acknowledge and combat those that fall in these categories. Luckily for us, a critical approach, with inclusivity in mind can combat these risen challenges. In The Invisible Interface: MS Word in the Writing Center, Buck takes the idea a step further and gives an analysis on how students directly interact with interface. This reading had peaked my interest due to the transition from in- person to online that many tutors/students experienced during the pandemic. Buck’s development and survey of the interactions proved that the relationship between student and the tutor (student and teacher) needed to change. She further explains why a student would prefer having paper copies of school materials (books, essays, journals, etc.), however Buck’s solution to this is similar to that mentioned above: there needs to be a redirected approach to show and teach interface to students, so that they may have a better grasp on what these platforms can do for them. Lastly, like the two other reading, I found The Design of Web 2.0: The Rise of the Template, The Fall of Design important because of the reality of how often people who have no “technological background,” fiddle with interface. Though the article is dated, it does not change the fact that people all over the world are still doing this to their social media platforms. This then brings up the idea that interface, in correlation to rhetoric will never die out, and is forever perpetually in a digital scope. Because as we interact in any social media platform, we are communicating rhetoric through our interface, which then enables us to be authentic. Even when we can change our “design” we are otherwise represented by out content (pg.11).

            The readings were all working in tandem to have interface understood through the scope of, mostly, the student. In the reading I found most interesting, I made a clear connection to vulnerable students; the ones that prefer to read paper text because tech seemed incomprehensible. Whether the reason was accessibility, or refusal to adapt, the message that seem to come from all reading was the interface is embedded within (if not all) platforms. Because as Wysocki points out, interface can be “a shared boundary where two or more systems meet; or the means by which communication is achieved at this boundary” (pg 32). The idea that interface can be considered, if not anything else, a means of communication, then Selfe(s) and Druckers emphasis on understanding the complexities of interface tend to have the same outcome: a progressive one that will inhabit positive learning experiences. Buck had watched this experience firsthand, the students interact not only with each other, but the computer as well. Furthermore, I also found Ghallager and Arola to have similar reading because of their use of the interface as a template. They both bring up interface as a tool for rhetorical communication that can be sprawled across the screen of whatever platform used at that time.

 

How are we tackling accessibility/inclusivity in the public-school system while we’re online? This was semi-answered in Selfe(s) reading, however students are still struggling with online and asynchronous learning.

 

How do you think individualism will change as time goes on and more students find themselves online in a non-customizable interface? While this is brought up in multiple readings, I am curious on the take for modern times.