Advertisement

Resisting the “Natural”: Rhetorical Delivery and the Natural User Interface

  • Ben McCorkle
Chapter

Abstract

The author critiques the emerging paradigm in the field of human–computer interaction known as the natural user interface (NUI), typically exemplified by gestural interfaces, haptic feedback systems, touch-sensitive displays, wearable hardware, and the like. Recent rhetorical theories about the canon of delivery, theories that consider the intersection of the body and technology in the act of communication, offer a lens through which we can read and interrogate the NUI, as well as the emergent genres of digital communication born of them. Left unexamined, the NUI paradigm potentially affords unequal degrees of access to users based on differences in class, gender, culture, race or ethnicity, ability, and other factors.

Keywords

Augmented Reality Natural User Interface Command Line Interface Oculus Rift Rhetorical Theory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Anthony, Sebastian. 2013. Brown university creates first wireless, implanted brain-computer interface. ExtremeTech. http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/ 149879-brown-university-creates-first-wireless-implanted-brain-computer-interface. Accessed 17 Nov 2013.
  2. Aristotle. 1991. On rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse. Trans: George A. Kennedy. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Arnall, Timo. 2013. No to NoUI. Elasticspace. http://www.elasticspace.com/ 2013/03/no-to-no-ui. Accessed 12 Feb 2016.
  4. Bolter, Jay David, and Diane Gromala. 2003. Windows and mirrors: Interaction design, digital art, and the myth of transparency. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bolter, Jay David, and Richard Grusin. 2000. Remediation: Understanding new media. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. boyd, danah. 2014. Is the oculus rift sexist? Quartz. http://qz.com/192874/is-the-oculus-rift-designed-to-be-sexist/. Accessed 12 Feb 2016.
  7. Brock, Kevin and David M. Rieder. 2013. Kinect-ing together writing and gesture through NUI technologies. Itineration. http://itineration.org/submission_pages/kinect/index.html. Accessed 12 Feb 2016.
  8. Buxton, Bill. 2007. Multi-touch systems that I have known and loved. Microsoft Research. http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html. Accessed 12 Feb 2016.
  9. Chun, Wendy Hui Kyong. 2013. Programmed visions: Software and memory. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Conley, Thomas. 1990. Rhetoric in the European tradition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. Degusta, Michael. 2012. Are smart phones spreading faster than any technology in human history? MIT Technology Review. http://www.technologyreview.com/news/427787/are-smart-phones-spreading-faster-than-any-technology-in-human-history/. Accessed 12 Feb 2016.
  12. Dolmage, Jay. 2008. Mapping composition: Inviting disability in the front door. In Disability and the teaching of writing, eds. Cynthia Lewiecki-Wilson and Brenda Jo Brueggemann, 14–27. Boston: Bedford-St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  13. Hargittai, Eszter. 2010. Digital na(t)ives? Variation in internet skills and uses among members of the ‘net generation’. Sociological Inquiry 80(1): 92–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jain, Jhilmil, Arnie Lund, and Dennis Wixon. 2011. The future of natural user interfaces. CHI extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. 211–214. New York: ACM Press. doi:  10.1145/1979742.1979527.
  15. Lanham, Richard. 1993. The electronic word. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Laurel, Brenda. 1990. The art of human–computer interface design. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  17. McCorkle, Ben. 2005. Harbingers of the printed page: Nineteenth-century theories of delivery as remediation. Rhetoric Society Quarterly 35(4): 25–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. ———. 2012. Rhetorical delivery as technological discourse: Across-historical perspective. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Palmeri, Jason. 2006. Disability studies, cultural analysis, and the critical practice of technical communication pedagogy. Technical Communication Quarterly 15(1): 49–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Raymond, Eric S. 2004. The art of unix usability. http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/taouu/html/. Accessed 12 Feb 2016.
  21. Rieder, David M. 2013. From GUI to NUI: Microsoft’s Kinect and the politics of the (body as) interface. Present tense: A Journal of Rhetoric in Society 3(1). http://www.presenttensejournal.org/volume-3/from-gui-to-nui-microsofts-kinect-and-the-politics-of-the-body-as-interface/. Accessed 12 Feb 2016.
  22. Selfe, Cynthia L., and Richard J. Selfe, Jr. 1994. The politics of the interface: Power and its exercise in electronic contact zones. College Composition and Communication 45(4): 480–504.Google Scholar
  23. Tran, Ben. 2015. Extended assistive technology: The impact of interactivity of human–computer interfaces on independence, employment, and organizations. In Nationalism, cultural indoctrination, and economic prosperity in the digital age, ed. Bryan Christensen, 173–201. Hershey: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  24. Wigdor, Daniel, and Dennis Wixon. 2011. Brave NUI world: Designing natural user interfaces for touch and gesture. Burlington: Elsevier/MK Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ben McCorkle
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EnglishOhio State University at MarionMarion, OHUSA

Personalised recommendations