Advertisement

AI & SOCIETY

, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 233–242 | Cite as

Culture of sedimentation in the human–technology interaction

  • Arun Kumar TripathiEmail author
Open Forum

Abstract

New technologies inspire new interface paradigms. Promising utility of new interfaces continues attracting their modification. It is argued that in order for human users to share phenomenological experiences through multimodal systems, they need to deal with embedded computers. This paper discusses the embodied nature of communication and a need for the development of a postphenomenology of technology, which plays a vital role in the material culture.

Keywords

Embodiment Human–computer interaction Computer technology Postphenomenology 

References

  1. Bowers CA (1988a) The cultural dimensions of educational computing: understanding the non-neutrality of technology (advances in contemporary educational thought series, vol 1. Teachers College Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Bowers CA (1988b) Teaching a nineteenth-century mode of thinking through a twentieth-century machine. Educ Theory 38(1):41–46MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bowers CA (2000) Let them eat data: how computers affect education, cultural diversity, and the prospects of ecological sustainability. University of Georgia Press, AthensGoogle Scholar
  4. Bowers CA (2003) Mindful conservatism: re-thinking the ideological and educational basis of an ecologically sustainable future. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc, LanhamGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowers CA, Vasquez M, Roaf M (2000) Native people and the challenge of computers: reservation schools individualism and consumerism. Am Indian Q 24(2):182–199Google Scholar
  6. Dourish P (2001) Where the action is: the foundations of embodied interaction. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Ehn P (1988) Work-oriented design of computer artifacts. Arbetslivscentrum, FalköpingGoogle Scholar
  8. Fairfield P (2000) Theorizing praxis: studies in the hermeneutical pragmatism. Peter Lang Publisher, BernGoogle Scholar
  9. Fallman D (2007) Why research-oriented design isn’t design-oriented research: on the tensions between design and research in an implicit design discipline. J Knowl Technol Policy Spec Issue on Des Res. doi: 10.1007/s12130-007-9022-8 Google Scholar
  10. Gill KS (1996) Human–machine symbiosis. The foundations of human-centred systems design. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heelan PA (1983) Perception as a hermeneutical act. Rev Metaphys 37(1):61–75Google Scholar
  12. Ihde D (1990) Technology and the lifeworld: from garden to earth. Indiana University Press, BloomingtonGoogle Scholar
  13. Ihde D (1998) Expanding hermeneutics: visualism in science. Northwestern University Press, EvanstonGoogle Scholar
  14. Ihde D (2008) Introduction: postphenomenological research. Hum Stud 31:1–9. doi: 10.1007/s10746-007-9077-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ihde D (2009) Postphenomenology and technoscience: the Peking University lectures. SUNY Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Irrgang B (2008) Philosophie der Technik [Philosophy of Technology]. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, DarmstadtGoogle Scholar
  17. Irrgang B (2009) Grundriss der Technikphilosophie. Hermeneutisch-phänomenologische Perspektiven [Philosophy of Technology: Hermeneutics-Phenomenological Perspectives]. Könighausen and Neumann, WuerzburgGoogle Scholar
  18. Johannessen KS (1988) Rule following and tacit knowledge. AI Soc 2:287–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Reynolds J (2002) Habituality and undecidability: a comparison of Merleau-Ponty and Derrida on the decision. Int J Philos Stud 10(4):449–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rosenberger R (2009a) The habits of computer use. Int J Comput Inf Technol 1(1):1–9MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. Rosenberger R (2009b) The sudden experience of the computer. Artif Intell Soc 24(2):173–180. doi: 10.1007/s00146-009-0190-9 Google Scholar
  22. Rothenberg D (1993) Hand’s end: technology and the limits of nature. University of California Press, OaklandGoogle Scholar
  23. Sellars W (1963) Philosophy and the scientific image of man. In: Science, perception, and reality. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, pp 1–40Google Scholar
  24. Steinert S (2010a) Interfaces: crosslinking humans and their machines. Int J Comput Inf Technol 1(2):130–140Google Scholar
  25. Steinert S (2010b) Visualisierungstechnologie und “Mixed Hermeneutics”. In: Pinzer D, Leidl L (eds) Technikhermeneutik. Technik zwischen Verstehen und Gestalten. Peter Lang, Frankfurt a. M., Berlin, Bern, pp S.91–S.109Google Scholar
  26. Stephanidis C (ed) (2007) Universal access in human–computer interaction. Ambient interaction part II, HCII 2007, LNCS 4555. Springer Publisher, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  27. Stephanidis C, Savidis A (2001) Universal access in the information society: methods, tools, and interaction technologies. Univ Access Inf Soc 1(1):40–55Google Scholar
  28. Tripathi AK (2005) Reflections on challenges to the goal of invisible computing. Ubiquity 6(17)Google Scholar
  29. Tripathi AK (2010) Ethics and aesthetics of technologies. AI Soc 25:5–9. doi: 10.1007/s00146-010-0265-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Verbeek PP (2003) Material Hermeneutics. In: Technè, vol 6–3, Spring 2003, ISSN 1091-8264, pp 91–96 (review of Don Ihde, Expanding Hermeneutics, Northwestern University Press, 1998)Google Scholar
  31. Verbeek PP (2005) What things do. Philosophical reflections on technology, agency, and design. Pennsylavia University Press, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  32. Vertegaal R, Poupyrev I (2008) Introduction organic user interfaces. Commun ACM 51(6):26–30. doi: 10.1145/1349026.1349033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Winograd T (1995) Thinking machines: can there be? Informatica (Slovenia) 19(4):443–459Google Scholar
  34. Winograd T, Flores F (1986) Understanding computers and cognition. Ablex Corporation, NorwoodzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Central University of Tibetan StudiesSarnath, VaranasiIndia

Personalised recommendations