In "Black Gooey Universe," American Artist explores the relationship
between race and the development of graphical user interfaces (GUIs),
particularly the dominance of white culture in the tech industry and how
this has manifested in the all-white GUI of modern interfaces like the
Apple Lisa. I did not found it's surprising that Silicon Valley's startup culture began as a white,
male-dominated space where ideas were developed without consequence; yet, i never though of how this could leave traces to user interferace.
Overall, as American Artist points out, the hegemonic systems within tech are often hard to recognize. Therefore, Artist
proposes Blackness as an antithesis to the assumed whiteness of screens.
The default blackness in LCD monitors gives the Black GUI nuance and
power, even though it may seem slow or broken in comparison to the values
of white screens. AA uses this metaphor to comment on current race
relations in America and how the conditioning of white space as "neutral"
and "accessible" conceals the erasure of Blackness in technology.
1. Can you think of another example of the invisible hegemonic techonology?
2. How does racial injustice affect technology, in addition to UIUX design?
3. What are some practices we users can do in order to train our critical thinking in using techonology?
I find it very interesting that at the very beginning of technology
invention, we used to draw experience from nature and life necessary to
imagine technology. For example, we mimic how birds fly to create a flying
vehicle like a plane, and as the author said, people once use a highway
analogy, and even a picture of the living room to explain the use of the
internet. However, at this current stage, we have come to an age where we
are highly reliant on technology to imagine what our future life,
aesthetics, technology, and philosophy should look like. With the
invention of OpenAI like Chatgpt, people are relying upon it to write
emails, love letters, and mimic human responses. With Open AI’s endless of
information, I wonder how authenticity could last, or evolve within
technology.
1. Do you still think today's internet invention is based on inspirations drawn from the nature?
2. What do you think authenticity mean in today's technology world?
behavior?
It is interesting to see how Hito Steyerl's reflection on poor images can be applied to other aspects of society, such as art and consumerism. The idea that society has determined what is "quality" and uses it as a means of exclusion and demoralization of individuals is a thought-provoking one. It makes me wonder about the other areas where this could apply, such as education, where certain types of knowledge or skills are considered more valuable than others, leading to the marginalization of certain groups of people. Moreover, the link between poor images and consumerism is something that I had not considered before. The culture of consumerism is all about buying something new and throwing away what has been used. In this context, poor images could be seen as disposable and unworthy of attention. This perpetuates the cycle of consumption, where people are constantly encouraged to buy new things and discard the old. Overall, this reflection on poor images highlights the pervasive nature of privilege and power dynamics in society. It reminds us to be critical of the dominant narratives that shape our understanding of what is valuable and worthy of attention.
While I have heard of the prejudices of facial recognition before, Joy
Buolamwini's TED Talk “How I’m fighting bias in algorithms” has informed
me and inspired me a lot. It is especially interesting to hear when she
talks about when she faced the bias of facial recognition the first time,
she thought - "oh, someone will fix this in the future", and then,
shortly, she found out this biased algorithm has travelled across the
world and brought the bias to different places, making it an unseen norm.
This realization has prompted me to reconsider my own assumptions about
how problems can be addressed and how far-reaching their effects can be,
especially in the realm of technology. After watching the talk, I'm
interested in exploring how coding resources can be made more accessible
to a wider range of communities and how we can incorporate diverse
representation into the testing process to mitigate bias.
1. Can you provide examples of other types of biased artificial
intelligence?
2. What are some positive examples of AI being used to
benefit minority communities? (e.g. Apple's hiring practices and
development of communication applications for people with health
conditions or impairments)
3. How can we strike a balance between
the use of facial recognition algorithms and privacy concerns?
This week's reading of Olivia Ross's "How to Write Non-Violent Creative
Code" and viewing of Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie's TED Talk "The Danger of a
Single Story" prompted me to reflect on the intersection of
internet/technology, history, and memory in contemporary society. In the
past, history was often controlled and manipulated by those in power, who
had the authority to determine what constituted "correct history" and the
state's memory. Other voices were often silenced or disregarded as
"incorrect," resulting in the erasure of individual experiences and
perspectives. This, as Adichie warns, is the danger of a single story.
However, with the widespread accessibility of the internet and technology,
diverse voices and stories are beginning to emerge. Ross challenges coders
to consider how they can write non-violently and create technology that is
inclusive and accessible to different populations. This is crucial in the
current context, where technology has the potential to either perpetuate
or challenge power dynamics and historical narratives. Overall, the
reading and viewing prompted me to consider the importance of diverse
voices and the dangers of a single story in both history and technology.
It also highlighted the responsibility of coders to create technology that
is mindful of its impact on society and promotes inclusivity and
accessibility.
1. How can we work to ensure that our code is inclusive and
accessible to people of all backgrounds and abilities?
2. How can we
identify and address biases in our code, particularly when we are writing
about communities that are not close to us, or those that may be
unconscious or unintentional?
3. How can non-violent creative code
play a role in introductary coding classes?
Reading Week March 5: In Christine Sun Kim's TED Talk, she draws connections between ASL, language, and music, highlighting how they all relate to communication as a whole. Despite the various notations and articulations, musical notes cannot be fully expressed on paper, and interpreters and conductors may give different interpretations of the same piece. Kim's incorporation of the history of ASL challenges the idea that sound is necessary for communication and shows that movement can be equivalent to sound in deaf culture. This raises questions about how we can interpret sound in unique ways, whether our upbringing affects our interpretation of sound, and how sound can be empowering for people with audio disabilities instead of being a tool for their marginalization. Kim's work complicates the distinction between sound and silence, urging us to explore different perspectives of noise. How can we incorporate the unique interpretations of sound from individuals who have audio disabilities into our mainstream understanding of sound and communication? Can the incorporation of movement as a form of communication in deaf culture help us expand our understanding of non-verbal communication in general? How can we use technology and other innovative tools to create more inclusive experiences for individuals with audio disabilities, and make sound more empowering for them?
One part of Ari Melenciano’s talk that particularly interested me was her
discussion on how our general understanding of design stems from
industrialization and capitalism, which are structurally supported by
humanism, colonialism, and racism. Design choices across all fields of it,
from industrial to user interface, are often motivated by what makes the
most profit or generates the most “efficient” work. For example, as we
have read from “How to Internet” back in week 3, the internet was filled
with much more connection, creativity, freedom, and variety in its
inception. Now, most websites we access seem to stem from a single
template; there needs to be a hero section with a tagline to grab
attention, a piece of text about business value…etc. From a blank canvas
of infinite connection possibilities, the web quickly turned into a
commercial and business space as advertisement spaces started to take
over. In “The Role of Mass Media in U.S. Imperialism,” scholar Robert
Chrisman discusses how even the most distinguished creative talent in the
United States is not used for creativity’s sake or social change but to
“create advertisement jingles and images.” What does it mean for
creativity when it is being used to drive sales and increase productivity?
When words like “human-centered design” are being thrown around with
little to no meaning? We must be critical of the fact that the development
of design itself has been inherently exclusionary and based on systems of
oppression, and use Omni-Specialized Design to deconstruct and unlearn the
design of the past.
1. How do we start imagining better futures (futures without systems
of oppression), and what forces exist that prevent us from doing so?
2. How can creativity be used for social change? What events in the
past have shown so?
3. What can we, as university students, do to
start practicing ecologically-centered design?
Christine Sun Kim’s TED Talk about the connections between ASL, language, and music drew my attention to the broader concept of communication. Kim pointed out that even with multiple notations and articulations in music, it is difficult to translate the full expression of a composer’s intention to another person. This concept of limited communication extends beyond music, as it is a challenge in any medium. Kim’s incorporation of the history of ASL challenged the notion that sound is necessary for communication and demonstrated how movement can be equivalent to sound in deaf culture. Her work prompts us to consider how sound can be interpreted differently and how upbringing can influence our interpretation of sound. Moreover, Kim’s talk raises questions about how sound can empower people with audio disabilities rather than being a tool for their marginalization.
1. How can we incorporate the unique interpretations of sound from
individuals who have audio disabilities into our mainstream understanding
of sound and communication?
2. Can the incorporation of movement as
a form of communication in deaf culture help us expand our understanding
of non-verbal communication in general?
3. How can we use technology
and other innovative tools to create more inclusive experiences for
individuals with audio disabilities, and make sound more empowering for
them?