No to NoUI

Invisible-design

The best design is invisible‘ is the interaction design phrase of the moment. The images above are from my ever-expanding collection of quotes about how design and technology will ‘disappear‘, become ‘invisible‘ or how the ‘best interface is no interface‘.

The Verge has recently given both Oliver Reichenstein and Golden Krishna a platform to talk about this. This has spawned manifestos, films, talks, books, #NoUI hashtags and some debates about what it might mean. I’ll call this cluster of things ‘invisible design’.

I agree with some of the reasons driving this movement; that design’s current infatuation with touchscreens is really problematic. I’ve spent the last eight years rallying against glowing rectangles, studying our obsession with screens and the ways in which this has become a cultural phenomena. In response I have been researching and inventing interfaces for taking interaction out from under the glass.

But I also take issue with much of the thinking for a few reasons that I’ll outline below.

1. Invisible design propagates the myth of immateriality

We already have plenty of thinking that celebrates the invisibility and seamlessness of technology. We are overloaded with childish mythologies like ‘the cloud’; a soft, fuzzy metaphor for enormous infrastructural projects of undersea cables and power-hungry data farms. This mythology can be harmful and is often just plain wrong. Networks go down, hard disks fail, sensors fail to sense, processors overheat and batteries die.

Computing systems are suffused through and through with the constraints of their materiality. – Jean-François Blanchette

Invisible design propogates the myth that technology will ‘disappear’ or ‘just get out of the way’ rather than addressing the qualities of interface technologies that can make them difficult or delightful.

Intentionally hiding the phenomena and materiality of interfaces, smoothing over the natural edges, seams and transitions that constitute all technical systems, entails a loss of understanding and agency for both designers and users of computing. Lack of understanding leads to uncertainty and folk-theories that hinder our ability to use technical systems, and clouds the critique of technological developments.

As systems increasingly record our personal activity and data, invisibility is exactly the wrong model.

By removing our knowledge of the glue that holds the systems that make up the infrastructure together, it becomes much more difficult, if not impossible, to begin to understand how we are constructed as subjects, what types of systems are brought into place (legal, technical, social, etc.) and where the possibilities for transformation exist. – Matt Ratto (2007)

In other words, as both users and designers of interface technology, we are disenfranchised by the concepts of invisibility and disappearance.

2. Invisible design falls into the natural/intuitive trap

The movement tells us to ‘embrace natural processes’ and talks about the ‘incredibly intuitive’ Mercedes car interface. This language is a trap (we should ban the use of natural and intuitive btw) that doesn’t give us any insight into how complex products might actually become simple or familiar.

Invisible design leads us towards the horrors of Reality Clippy. Does my refrigerator light really go off? Why was my car unlocked this morning? How did my phone go silent all of a sudden? Without highly legible systems for managing and understanding all of this ‘smartness’ we are going to get very lost and highly frustrated. The tricky business of push notifications and the Facebook privacy train wreck is just the tip of the iceberg.

The example of the Nest thermostat invisibly ‘learning’ your habits to control your home temperature is a good one. But the Nest has a highly visible interface that reassures you as to its status, tells you when it is learning, and a large dial for adjusting temperature. Beautiful, legible microinteractions. A Nest without these visual and direct manipulation interfaces would be useless, uncanny and frustrating. Nest wants UI.

The discussion around invisible design often talks about using sensors and tangible interfaces instead of visual interfaces. But these systems are not inherently simpler or more familiar. They have their own material qualities with edges and ‘grain’ that need to be understood and learnt. Their literal invisibility can cause confusion, even fear, and they often increase unpredictability and failure.

In our work with interface technologies such as RFID and computer vision, we’ve discovered that it takes a lot of work to make sense of the technologies as design materials. So it’s not useful to say that UI is ‘disappearing’ into sensing, algorithms and tangible interfaces, when we don’t fully understand them as UI yet.

3. Invisible design ignores interface culture

Interfaces are the dominant cultural form of our time. So much of contemporary culture takes place through interfaces and inside UI. Interfaces are part of cultural expression and participation, skeuomorphism is evidence that interfaces are more than chrome around content, and more than tools to solve problems. To declare interfaces ‘invisible’ is to deny them a cultural form or medium. Could we say ‘the best TV is no TV’, the ‘best typography is no typography’ or ‘the best buildings are no architecture’?

Much of our work at BERG is not just about solving problems, but about cultural invention:

We’re not interested in this idea of the invisible technology in a modernist sense. Tech won’t be visible but only if it’s embedded into the culture that it exists within. By foregrounding the culture, you background the technology. It’s the difference between grinding your way through menus on an old Nokia, trying to do something very simple, and inhabiting the bright bouncy bubbly universe of iOS. The technology is there, of course, but it’s effectively invisible as the culture is foregrounded.” – Jack Schulze (in Domus 965 / January 2013)

We should be able to simultaneously celebrate the fantastic explosion of diversity in UI, and develop healthy critique around the use of interfaces like touch screens. But by calling for UI to disappear altogether so that things can be more efficient, we remain in the same utilitarian and rational mindset that produces inert technological visions like this, rather than seeing interfaces as part of the cultural landscape.

4. Invisible design ignores design and technology history

The movement ignores at least thirty years of thinking in design and technology. A few examples:

Much of the recent invisible design discussions repeat the thinking in Jared Spool’s ‘Great Designs Should Be Experienced and Not Seen‘ and Donald Norman’s ‘Invisible Computer. But a better reference point would be Don Norman’s earlier book, The design of everyday things, where he instead talks about the ‘problems caused by inadequate attention to visibility’ and supporting or managing our mental models of systems. We need a lot more thinking about our mental models of algorithms in particular.

Adam Greenfield has investigated the social and ethical issues around the development of ubiquitous computing systems, and is particularly concerned by its disappearance:

“Ubiquitous systems must contain provisions for immediate and transparent querying of their ownership, use, and capabilities. Everyware must, in other words, be self-disclosing. Whether such disclosures are made graphically, or otherwise, they ensure that you are empowered to make informed decisions as to the level of exposure you wish to entertain.” – Adam Greenfield (2006)

Some designers have talked about the actual qualities they want from ubiquitous computing interfaces, such as polite, pertinent and pretty:

“The vast quantities of information that personal informatics generate need not only to be clear and understandable to create legibility and literacy in this new world, but I’d argue in this first wave also seductive, in order to encourage play, trial and adoption” Matt Jones & Tom Coates (2008)

Matthew Chalmers has, more than anyone else, revealed the history of seamlessness. Seamlessness is ‘the deliberate “making invisible” of the variety of technical systems, artifacts, individuals and organizations that make up an information infrastructure. This work actively disguises the moments of transition and boundary crossing between these various parts in order to present a solid and seemingly coherent interface to users.’ (Ratto 2007). Although Mark Weiser is often thought of as an advocate of seamless systems, Chalmers found that:

Weiser describes seamlessness as a misleading or misguided concept. In his invited talks to UIST94 and USENIX95 he suggested that making things seamless amounts to making everything the same, reducing components, tools and systems to their ‘lowest common denominator’. He advocated seamful systems (with “beautiful seams”) as a goal. Around Xerox PARC, where many researchers worked on document tools, Weiser used an example of seamful integration of a paint tool and a text editor (Weiser, personal communication). He complained that seamless integration of such tools often meant that the user was forced to use only one of them. One tool would be chosen as primary and the others reduced and simplified to conform to it, or they would be crudely patched together with ugly seams. Seamfully integrated tools would maintain the unique characteristics of each tool, through transformations that retained their individual characteristics. This would let the user brush some characters with the paint tool in some artful way, then use the text editor to ‘search and replace’ some of the brushstroked characters, and then paint over the result with colour washes. Interaction would be seamless as the features of each tool were “literally visible, effectively invisible”. Seamful integration is hard, but the quality of interaction can be improved if we let each tool ‘be itself’. – Matthew Chalmers (2003)

Matt Ratto investigates the darker side of this drive towards invisibility, revealing that seamlessness encourages:

“a particular kind of passivity and lack of engagement between people and their actions and between people and their social and material environment” and that we must “critique the clean, orderly, and homogenous future that is at the heart of these modernist visions” – Matt Ratto (2007)

And Anne Galloway suggests that it is in the seams where the design work can be done:

“Although seamlessness may remain a powerful and effective metaphor to guide particular projects, when it comes to actually getting the work done—and the challenges of having to do it with people who can be very different from each other—then I suggest it is in everyone’s best interests to recognise the importance of seams and scars in marking places where interventions can be made, or where potential can be found and acted upon.” – Anne Galloway (2007)

In interaction design we need to look at the long history of Durrell Bishop‘s work, one of the strongest advocates for self-evident design, whether it is physical or virtual, through his teaching and design practice. Durrell’s ‘Platform 12’ in the RCA Design Products course attempts to see design as:

“a celebration of a model for how things work, where once again we can treat function as beauty, instead of merely treating design as form and image.”

Durrell’s work on the Marble Answering Machine (1992) is a brilliant piece of self-evident design, and remains a touchstone for all interaction design work.

Designers also need to look at the first four chapters of ‘Where the action is‘ by Paul Dourish which give a coherent account of the relationships between human abilities and computer interfaces over the last 50-60 years. Dourish shows how interfaces are not becoming invisible, but how they are increasingly social and tangible.

And finally, from a design perspective, there is a long tradition of making complex products legible and understandable. Industrial designer Konstantin Grcic talks about the relationship between the technologies and the use of an object:

“A machine is beautiful when it’s legible, when its form describes how it works. It isn’t simply a matter of covering the technical components with an outer skin, but finding the correct balance between the architecture of the machine… and an expressive approach that is born out of the idea of interaction with those using the object.” – Konstantin Grcic (2007)

And perhaps more famously, Dieter Rams has always talked of honesty and understanding in his product design practice. Making a product understandable is one of his Ten Principles of “Good Design”.

dieter_rams-10principles-04

This drive for understanding needs to go further than physical form (as it has done at Apple) and start to inform the design of systems and UI.

Towards legible, evident interaction

We must abandon invisibility as a goal for interfaces; it’s misleading, unhelpful and ultimately dishonest. It unleashes so much potential for unusable, harmful and frustrating interfaces, and systems that gradually erode users and designers agency. Invisibility might seem an attractive concept at first glance, but it ignores the real, thorny, difficult issues of designing and using complex interfaces and systems.

We might be better off instead taking our language from typography, and for instance talk about legibility and readability without denying that typography can call attention to itself in beautiful and spectacular ways. Our goal should be to ‘place as much control as possible in the hands of the end-user by making interfaces evident‘.

Of course the interfaces we design may become normalised in use, effectively invisible over time, but that will only happen if we design them to be legible, readable, understandable and to foreground culture over technology. To build trust and confidence in an interface in the first place, enough that it can comfortably recede into the background.

124 responses for No to NoUI

  1. […] No to NoUI – Timo Arnall I won't do Timo a disservice by quoting one fragment of this essay; it's one of those lovely pieces of writing where not a word is wasted, where it all builds an argument, and you should just read the whole thing. Lots of topics I've been touching on in recent years, in part because of my time at Berg, and the designers who are my friends and peers. This is what needs to be beaten into the world, a little; the way to beat it in is to build it in, through our work and products. I should work on that more. (tags: design timoarnall writing ui materials readability evidence ) […]

  2. […] Yet, he also takes issue with much of this thinking for a few reasons that he outlines in a blog post. […]

  3. […] Chimero has a great follow-up to Tino Arnall’s excellent post No to NoUI. In *The Cloud is Heavy and Design Isn’t Invisible Frank explores what’s appropriate (and […]

  4. […] Arnall’s “No to NoUI” (http://www.elasticspace.com/2013/03/no-to-no-ui) has caused quite a stir within the design community. While I enjoyed reading this article, I do […]

  5. […] have to be Google, and deliver it from a google.com URL, to pull that off? Not necessarily. But if interfaces are culture[13], then being Google certainly helps. “It’s just like here: [Google] is well loved, it’s […]

  6. […] and these Google concepts), wants to correct our poor design vocabulary. In a pretty fantastic open letter, he argues that while we all want to escape the screen, “invisible” and “seamless” design […]

  7. […] Why future interfaces won’t be invisible. Timo Arnall […]

  8. […] Arnall recently wrote about the problems with ‘invisible design’. It not only questions the myth of the intuitive, but also argues eloquently for the legible. (It […]

  9. […] A comprehensive and immensely readable rebuke to invisible interfaces by Timo Arnall, creative director at BERG in London and research fellow at the Oslo School of Architecture & Design: No to NoUI […]

  10. […] digress into the topic of “beautiful seams” vs. “transparency”, as raised both here and here by BERG-ians, but I think both Hartman’s and Diana’s talks dovetailed with that argument, too, […]

  11. […] No to NoUI: “Invisible design propogates the myth that technology will ‘disappear’ or ‘just get out of the way’ rather than addressing the qualities of interface technologies that can make them difficult or delightful.” | Timo Arnall […]

  12. […] – Cloud computing survey commissioned by Citrix, August 2012: http://www.citrix.com/lang/English/lp/lp_2328330.asp – The proposed Center for Innovation, Testing and Evaluation, New Mexico: http://www.forumforthefuture.org/greenfutures/articles/worlds-first-city-robots – China Miéville quoted from “Alien Evasion” by China Miéville, published in Arc 1.1, February 2012: The Future Always Wins: http://is.gd/chinam – Invisible Fields (2011), co-curated by José Luis de Vicente and Honor Harger and at Arts Santa Monica, Barcelona: http://www.lighthouse.org.uk/programme/invisible-fields – 20Hz by Semiconductor (2011): http://www.lighthouse.org.uk/programme/semiconductor-20-hz – Frequency & Volume by Rafael Lozano-Hemmer – Immaterials: Light Painting WiFi by Timo Arnall and collaborators (2011) shown at Invisible Fields, Barcelona 2011-12: http://vimeo.com/20412632 – Timo Arnall quoted in No to NoUI by Timo Arnall, March 2013: http://www.elasticspace.com/2013/03/no-to-no-ui […]

  13. […] No to NoUI ?????????????????? […]

  14. […] Arnall’s recent essay No to NoUI, in which he addresses the mythologised ideal of ‘invisible’ design, I stumbled across […]

  15. […] (“I don’t know what I can change, so I just won’t change anything.”) As Timo Arnall recently mentioned in “No to NoUI”) , I suppose that addressing all of these issues and creating an awesome user experience is what […]

  16. No to NoUI says:

    […] No to NoUI […]

  17. […] No to NoUI by Timo Arnall is one of the better pieces I’ve read on design and interfaces, and is also chock-full of links that will keep you busy for hours. […]

  18. […] – Cloud computing survey commissioned by Citrix, August 2012: http://www.citrix.com/lang/English/lp/lp_2328330.asp – The proposed Center for Innovation, Testing and Evaluation, New Mexico: http://www.forumforthefuture.org/greenfutures/articles/worlds-first-city-robots – China Miéville quoted from “Alien Evasion” by China Miéville, published in Arc 1.1, February 2012: The Future Always Wins: http://is.gd/chinam – Invisible Fields (2011), co-curated by José Luis de Vicente and Honor Harger and at Arts Santa Monica, Barcelona: http://www.lighthouse.org.uk/programme/invisible-fields – 20Hz by Semiconductor (2011): http://www.lighthouse.org.uk/programme/semiconductor-20-hz – Frequency & Volume by Rafael Lozano-Hemmer – Immaterials: Light Painting WiFi by Timo Arnall and collaborators (2011) shown at Invisible Fields, Barcelona 2011-12: http://vimeo.com/20412632 – Timo Arnall quoted in No to NoUI by Timo Arnall, March 2013: http://www.elasticspace.com/2013/03/no-to-no-ui […]

  19. No to NoUI says:

    […] Timo Arnall writes: […]

  20. […] Timo Arnall: No to NoUI […]

  21. […] 19] Timo Arnall, “No to NoUI” – think of a built space as an interface to the “knowledge work” that’s taking place […]

  22. […] haven’t really been following the “NoUI” thing, but I did really enjoy reading this article arguing against NoUI, and am dying to explore the amazing resources linked throughout (a lot of which are on design, UX, […]

  23. […] as interaction designer/technology researcher/filmmaker Timo Arnall convincingly argues,  a) not all interface designers necessarily know (or agree with) this idea; and b) the language […]

  24. […] in the hype. Interfaces can be both visible and useful if they are simple and straightforward (read these two articles for fantastic discussions on the shortcomings of the “no UI” movement). […]

  25. […] The rise of the noUI. Simply a brilliant and must read article. […]

  26. […] The rise of the noUI. Simply a brilliant and must read article. […]

  27. […] The rise of the noUI. Simply a brilliant and must read article. […]

  28. […] as interaction designer/technology researcher/filmmaker Timo Arnall convincingly argues,  a) not all interface designers necessarily know (or agree with) this idea; and b) the language […]

  29. […] you have even a passing interest in HCI and UX, please do give the entire piece a read, including the many fascinating references he links […]

  30. […] talk “No to NoUI“, Ash’s new podcast, the implicit aspects of design, Geoff Teehan’s Medium post, […]

  31. […] insightful article by Timo Arnall over at elastic space. The argument is against all the recent “invisible interface” […]

  32. […] world is full of haters. Yep, some people just like to criticize. We came across a blog post recently that took quite a negative view on NUI design and quite honestly mis-represented, or […]

  33. […] No to NoUI by Timo Arnall, at BERG Is really the best design invisible? A call from Timo Arnall. […]

  34. […] in the hype. Interfaces can be both visible and useful if they are simple and straightforward (read these two articles for fantastic discussions on the shortcomings of the “no UI” movement). It’s ok to […]

  35. […] No to NoUI?“Our goal should be to ‘place as much control as possible in the hands of the end-user by making interfaces evident’. Of course the interfaces we design may become normalised in use, effectively invisible over time, but that will only happen if we design them to be legible, readable, understandable and to foreground culture over technology. To build trust and confidence in an interface in the first place, enough that it can comfortably recede into the background.” […]

  36. […] No to NoUI by Timo Arnall is one of the better pieces I’ve read on design and interfaces, and is also chock-full of links that will keep you busy for hours. […]

  37. […] No to NoUI – Timo Arnall […]

  38. […] Hole: No to No UI Timo Arnall says No to No UI (more commonly referred to as “invisible design”), and puts forth a detailed and cogent […]

  39. […] No to NoUI – Timo Arnall. Un artículo extraordinario que advierte sobre los riesgos de los sistemas mágicos, los sistemas donde todo parece funcionar solo, sin que el usuario tenga que hacer nada… ni pueda hacer nada. Un sistema que recoge datos privados debería ser, por encima de todo, claramente visible.   We are overloaded with childish mythologies like ‘the cloud’; a soft, fuzzy metaphor for enormous infrastructural projects of undersea cables and power-hungry data farms […]

  40. […] To NoUI – A Critique Of “Invisible Design” | elasticspace.com/2013/03/no-to-… by Timo […]

  41. […] – Invisible Fields (2011), co-curated by Honor Harger and José Luis de Vicente at Arts Santa Monica, Barcelona 2011-12: http://is.gd/invisible – Wireless in the World by Timo Arnall (2010): http://is.gd/wirelessworld – shown at Invisible Fields. – Timo Arnall quoted in No to NoUI by Timo Arnall, March 2013: http://www.elasticspace.com/2013/03/no-to-no-ui […]

  42. […] the author of Roads to Power: Britain Invents the Infrastructure State :: , Timo Arnall in his No to NoUI piece, Benjamin Bratton and his geopolitics of the cloud and theoretical languge of ‘the […]

  43. […] It included pieces by practitioners like Timo Arnall, that gave us tangible encounters with the normally invisible technologies which pervade every aspect of our lives, but do so invisibly, and beyond our grasp. That very invisibility carries with it implicit philosophical dangers. As Timo Arnall (2013) has recently eloquently written: […]

  44. […] cuttings on the notion that “the best design is invisible”. Timo’s long post is worth reading in full, but he raises fundamental questions about the role of interface in our relationship with […]

  45. […] than that. It’s an over-simplistic measure of success that is put far more eloquently than in this post from Timo […]

  46. […] Timo Arnall, in an article on his blog, “No to NoUI” […]

  47. […] than that. It’s an over-simplistic measure of success that is put far more eloquently than in this post from Timo […]

  48. […] As technology becomes more ubiquitous, our relationship with our devices is becoming ever-more seamless, and our technical infrastructure is becoming ever more invisible. These seamless experiences make technology pleasurable to use, but they also mask the materiality of technology. As Timo Arnall has recently eloquently written (http://www.elasticspace.com/2013/03/no-to-no-ui): […]

  49. […] Otra lectura muy recomendable al respecto, No to NoUI: […]

  50. […] Interfaces aren’t magic, and we don’t really want them to be. To borrow from Timo Arnall: interfaces are culture. And like any pieces of culture, what they ought to do is simple: they ought to […]

  51. […] “intuitivas” a las  interfaces “familiares. En les mismo post, está ”No to NoUI” de Timo Arnal, donde habla de las interfaces como forma cultural dominante de nuestro […]

  52. […] than that. It’s an over-simplistic measure of success that is put far more eloquently than in this post from Timo […]

  53. […] people in the room to know what you’re doing? Is it possible to design politely? This makes Timo Arnall’s “no to no UI” message even more […]

  54. […] heavy interface or apparent complexity. Having recently read a couple of interesting antithetical points of view on the topic, I’ve been thinking a lot about how this applies to what I do on a daily […]

  55. […] filmmaker, and Berg creative director Timo Arnall recently wrote that “interfaces are the dominant cultural form of our time.” So much of how we […]

  56. […] filmmaker, and Berg creative director Timo Arnall recently wrote that “interfaces are the dominant cultural form of our time.” So much of how we […]

  57. […] ??????????Berg?????Timo Arnall????“???????????????????”?????????????????????????UI????????????????????????????????????????????????“fantasy user interfaces ?FUI????????”??? […]

  58. […] the internet fridge with an iPad strapped to the front I’d be happy. But mostly I agree with Timo Arnall’s No to NoUI post and his point that as both users and designers of interface technology, we are disenfranchised by […]

  59. […] presentation you can watch at the bottom of this post. Then came the backlash, most visibly from No to ‘No UI,’ from Berg creative director Timo Arnall, but also from another Cooper designer, who called […]

  60. […] presentation you can watch at the bottom of this post. Then came the backlash, most visibly from No to ‘No UI,’ from Berg creative director Timo Arnall, but also from another Cooper designer, who called […]

  61. […] tell whether they’re working or if they’re erroring. It’s hard to learn them. As Berg’s Timo Arnall puts it, “literal invisibility can cause confusion, even fear, and they often increase […]

  62. […] work well — really well — they do just that. It’s not that they get out of the way in an invisible UI sense. They are extremely visible, and they consume all your attention while you’re using […]

  63. […] reading through a very wordy blog as part of the UX Design module, the general gist of what I feel that he is saying is that whilst […]

  64. […] thrills just keep coming – tasked with reading the article “No to NoUI” (and trust me, that was a task!) we are asked to discuss our thoughts on said […]

  65. […] No to NoUI – a passionate and subjective article on invisible UI, and, in a nutshell, how it has no place in this world. Having read through the article, I was tasked to consider the differences and similarities between ‘invisible design’ and UI design that is ‘visually beautiful’. With that in mind I must answer the following question – can both meet the goal of great experience when properly balanced? My immediate answer is yes, and seeing as the article was subjective, I’m allowing my reply to feature a few more personal pronouns than usual with a lot of personal opinion behind them. There’s a place for beautiful interfaces, and there’s a place for no interfaces.  The writer of this article is a little too adamant upon the subject, so it could largely be my perversity speaking here, but I think that there is plenty of room for the best interface to be no interface. It all depends on the product, in the end, and who the target market is. […]

  66. […] reading this really long but detailed article, I learned about how certain designers believed that “invisible design” is the way to […]

  67. […] screens are becoming outdated and to establish preliminary “best practices.” Barring a few notable critiques, the discussions on invisible interfaces have thus far been mostly optimistic—perhaps too […]

  68. […] long been talk about getting rid of buttons and having No UI altogether, as well as intelligent arguments against turning people’s world […]

  69. […] enabling ‘seamless’ interactions between us and our technological devices. But there is a growing critique of this philosophy emerging within both the design and art communities. This was at the heart of Dan Williams‘ talk, Unexpected Item in the […]

  70. […] (2011): http://vimeo.com/20412632 – Timo Arnall quoted in No to NoUI by Timo Arnall, March 2013: http://www.elasticspace.com/2013/03/no-to-no-ui – Geographies of Seeing (2012) by Trevor Paglen, co-curated by Honor Harger and Celia Davies, at […]

  71. […] –Timo Arnall, No to NoUI […]

  72. […] (2011): http://vimeo.com/20412632 – Timo Arnall quoted in No to NoUI by Timo Arnall, March 2013: http://www.elasticspace.com/2013/03/no-to-no-ui – Geographies of Seeing (2012) by Trevor Paglen, co-curated by Honor Harger and Celia Davies, at […]

  73. […] – The Boston Shuffler- stock-trading algorithm, courtesy of Kevin Slavin: http://videos.liftconference.com/video/1177435/ – Cloud computing survey commissioned by Citrix, August 2012: http://www.citrix.com/lang/English/lp/lp_2328330.asp – The proposed Center for Innovation, Testing and Evaluation, New Mexico: http://www.forumforthefuture.org/greenfutures/articles/worlds-first-city-robots – Invisible Fields (2011), co-curated by José Luis de Vicente and Honor Harger and at Arts Santa Monica, Barcelona: http://www.lighthouse.org.uk/programme/invisible-fields – 20Hz by Semiconductor (2011): http://www.lighthouse.org.uk/programme/semiconductor-20-hz – Immaterials by Timo Arnall, Einar Sneve Martinussen, Jørn Knutsen, Jack Schulze and Matt Jones, Lighthouse, 2013: http://is.gd/immaterials – Immaterials: Light Painting WiFi by Timo Arnall, Einar Sneve Martinussen, and Jørn Knutsen (2011): http://vimeo.com/20412632 – Timo Arnall quoted in No to NoUI by Timo Arnall, March 2013: http://www.elasticspace.com/2013/03/no-to-no-ui […]

  74. […] Timo Arnall / No to No UI […]

  75. […] “intuitivas” a las  interfaces “familiares. En les mismo post, está ”No to NoUI” de Timo Arnal, donde habla de las interfaces como forma cultural dominante de nuestro […]

  76. […] furthermore, how desirable would “seamless” interaction be in this instance (perhaps it would be helpful and instructive to show some seams?); […]

  77. […] From “No to No UI” […]

  78. […] Poi c’è il discorso dell’integrazione seamless, sono critico pure su quello Per le ragioni scritte da uno molto più bravo di me. […]

  79. […] furthermore, how desirable would “seamless” interaction be in this instance (perhaps it would be helpful and instructive to show some seams?); […]

  80. […] – shown at Invisible Fields. – Timo Arnall quoted in No to NoUI by Timo Arnall, March 2013: http://www.elasticspace.com/2013/03/no-to-no-ui – Geographies of Seeing by Trevor Paglen (2012), co-curated by Honor Harger and Celia Davies, at […]

  81. […] furthermore, how desirable would “seamless” interaction be in this instance (perhaps it would be helpful and instructive to show some seams?); […]

  82. […] the one hand, technology has become invisible to some extent, as foregrounding cultural aspects backgrounds the technology. On the other hand, interaction criticism foregrounds the interaction design through in-depth […]

  83. […] A Response to the Invisible Interface […]

  84. […] in the hype. Interfaces can be both visible and useful if they are simple and straightforward (read thesetwo articles for fantastic discussions on the shortcomings of the “no UI” movement). It’s ok […]

  85. […] No to NoUI – Timo Arnall: We are overloaded with childish mythologies like “the cloud”; a soft, fuzzy metaphor for enormous infrastructural projects of undersea cables and power-hungry data farms. This mythology can be harmful and is often just plain wrong. Networks go down, hard disks fail, sensors fail to sense, processors overheat and batteries die: “Computing systems are suffused through and through with the constraints of their materiality.” […]

  86. […] the interfaces between the deep levels of the urban protocol stack, our interfaces could highlight the seams — in our infrastructural networks, between various layers of the urban stack, and even within […]

  87. […] long post is worth reading in full, but he raises fundamental questions about the role of interface in our relationship with […]

  88. […] (2011): http://vimeo.com/20412632 – Timo Arnall quoted in No to NoUI by Timo Arnall, March 2013: http://www.elasticspace.com/2013/03/no-to-no-ui – Geographies of Seeing (2012) by Trevor Paglen, co-curated by Honor Harger and Celia Davies, at […]

  89. […] images of what is usually completely invisible, and designed to be so, as Timo Arnell points out here: the touchscreen.  The screen is made visible by the way that the images show only the traces of […]

  90. […] Valentine: In “No to NoUI,” Timo Arnall […]

  91. […] http://vimeo.com/20412632 – Timo Arnall quoted in No to NoUI by Timo Arnall, March 2013: http://www.elasticspace.com/2013/03/no-to-no-ui – Geographies of Seeing (2012) by Trevor Paglen, co-curated by Honor Harger and Celia Davies, at […]

  92. […] http://vimeo.com/20412632 – Timo Arnall quoted in No to NoUI by Timo Arnall, March 2013: http://www.elasticspace.com/2013/03/no-to-no-ui – Geographies of Seeing (2012) by Trevor Paglen, co-curated by Honor Harger and Celia Davies, at […]

  93. […] “A machine is beautiful when it’s legible, when its form describes how it works. It isn’t simply a matter of covering the technical components with an outer skin, but finding the correct balance between the architecture of the machine… and an expressive approach that is born out of the idea of interaction with those using the object.” – Konstantin Grcic (2007), via http://www.elasticspace.com […]

  94. […] http://vimeo.com/20412632 – Timo Arnall quoted in No to NoUI by Timo Arnall, March 2013: http://www.elasticspace.com/2013/03/no-to-no-ui – Geographies of Seeing (2012) by Trevor Paglen, co-curated by Honor Harger and Celia Davies, […]

  95. […] Arnall’s “No to NoUI” (http://www.elasticspace.com/2013/03/no-to-no-ui) has caused quite a stir within the design community. While I enjoyed reading this article, I do […]

  96. […] “intuitivas” a las  interfaces “familiares. En les mismo post, está “No to NoUI” de Timo Arnal, donde habla de las interfaces como forma cultural dominante de nuestro […]

  97. […] como unas cosas te llevan a otras, acabé aterrizando en un brillante post escrito por Timo Arnall, quien apenas conocía y que ha despertado gran interés en mí. Éste […]

  98. […] http://vimeo.com/20412632 – Timo Arnall quoted in No to NoUI by Timo Arnall, March 2013: http://www.elasticspace.com/2013/03/no-to-no-ui – Geographies of Seeing (2012) by Trevor Paglen, co-curated by Honor Harger and Celia Davies, at […]

  99. […] No to NoUI – Timo Arnall […]

  100. […] No to NoUI, a fantastic essay by Timo Arnall about how we shouldn’t aim for “invisible” interfaces. […]

  101. […] No to NoUI, a fantastic essay by Timo Arnall about how we shouldn’t aim for “invisible” interfaces. […]

  102. […] leggera e poco ingombrante, ma ben definita. Perché ricorda che, come dice Timo Arnall, nessuna interfaccia è una cattiva interfaccia. ++ Per favore, pubblicizza la newsletter con un tweet o un post sul tuo social network preferito. […]

  103. […] of the Great Skeuomorphic Debate of 2010-ish. Then, most recently, the No Interface Movement (and countermovement) of 2015ish.  (I say “ish” as these debates are still raging on.) While I weigh in on […]

  104. […] the Nest aims to feel invisible, not actually be invisible. As Timo Arnall points out, the Nest actually has a highly visible interface that shows you the temperature, tells […]

  105. […] can attest to. Arnall’s argument seems to hinge on the idea of designing and maintaining “legible, readable, understandable” interfaces—or, in other words, metaphors. But grokking a system’s state isn’t the same […]

  106. […] the Nest thermostat, and I strongly feel that these interactions are useful and meaningful even if Timo Arnall discusses how pathetic an attempt it is to market Nest as an invisible and smart entity. It presents a more […]