Revealing Errors - Thoughts on Mako Hill's article

Revealing Errors - Thoughts on Mako Hill's article

Benjamin Mako Hill's essay Revealing Errors in the book Error: Glitch, Noise and Jam in New Media Cultures. edited by Mark Nunes is a guide through ways in which technologies have been shown to mediate information, only for the workings of this mediation to be revealed by errors in the system. Mako Hill gives examples of (in)famous systems errors which have displayed the political manipulations of information. Mako Hill argues that these intermediary codes, algorithms or technologies are hidden to the user until the point of error, which splits open the veneer of the user interface, exposing not only the working of the machine but also the political leanings of the developers.

These user interfaces, which Mako Hill explains to computer scientists are called "abstractions", allow the user to easily use the system (for instance like all operating systems for laptops and phones) without the need to understand or manipulate code. The user interface also prevents users from mistakenly (of possibly purposefully) breaking, rupturing or destroying the system by deleting or manipulating the code. However, this power over users' choice enables the coder to mediate their actions, often to a set of binary functions. Most computer users have experienced an error which produces a dialogue box that pops up with the choices of” Yes" or "Cancel" for example. Mako Hill's text gives a prime example of this with the instance of Mark Pilgrim. Pilgrim posted a blog article illustrating an update to Adobe Reader in which a dialogue box shows a clear failure of abstraction. Instead of a licence agreement it revealed the code and the "mark-up" for why the code is implemented Thus giving users an insight into the workings of the developers at Adobe, their motivations and ambitions, as well as their concerns. This goes further with his example of errors experienced by Facebook. The segment of code listed below shows the mark-up by programmers which had become visible to users. 

$monitor = array( ‘42107457’ => 1, ‘9359890’ => 1); //* Put baddies (hotties?) in here 

/* Monitoring these people’s profile viewage. Stored in central db on profile_views. Helpful for law enforcement to monitor stalkers and stalkees . */

Naturally, its visibility was a mistake and it reveals a detail about user data which the user would previously not be aware of. In fact, it enlightens users as to how much of their input is monitored, consequently altering their actions. Another reason for develops to veil this monitoring, as users will inevitable behave differently, if not avoid the system altogether.

Mako Hill references Latour's "black box" analogy for the veiling of "abstractions" of the system, as like other, physical technology, the workings of the machine are hidden from the user. Tamper proof. However, Mako make several references to the concept of affordances. It is not certain to which conceptualisation of affordances he is referring to but describes how the " errors can reveal the affordances and constraints of technology that are often invisible to users. Through these affordances and constraints, technologies make it easier to do some things, rather than others, and either easier or more difficult to communicate certain messages." Suggesting that affordances are inherent within systems and exist as antipodal to imposed limitations. Other thinking around affordances link the dynamic of opportunity and limitation together in what create affordances. Describing a system in which constrains help to create the affordances. Famously JJ GIbson coined the word with an approach to visual perception in 1979 stating " It implies the complementarity of the animal and the environment." (1979, p. 127) This complementarity is just as forged by it constraints as its opportunities. In another section Mako Hill contradicts his previous statement by writing "While affordances constrain what users can do or say," which fits with a more Gibsonian view of the affordance. However, his section on the keyboard and printing press give explicit example of how affordances for error can elucidate the working of both the machine for the complex interactions of the user. The typing error, the upside-down letter, the repetitive smudging of ink; the finger print removal of toner. None would never exist without the technologies and the affordances for interaction with humans.

With other references to text speak and evangelical new network mediations of headlines, Mako Hill goes on to list several examples of the pervasive was in which technology mediates not only the information we receive but the way we behave. It is an important insight when investigating the ways in which artists are also approaching systems which are deliberately closed to their methods. Artists become activists, as Mako Hill describes,

“Errors can expose the particularities of a technology and, in doing so, provide an opportunity for users to connect with scholars speaking to the power of technology and to activists arguing for increased user control.”

 Artists searching for user control discover errors which manipulate their movement or engagement, control their data or input, and alter their outputs and work. Pertaining to my research into 3D technologies, my questions remain: in what ways do 3D technologies mediate? For what purpose do technologies restrict user control? In what ways do these technologies affect the ways in which we view reality?