The invisible vs the visible computer

Bolter & Gromala (2003) describe in Windows and Mirrors why the view or vision of Norman, Nilsen et al. is too narrow and why it is not always preferable to have an invisible computer. Designers and especially digital artists often need a visible computer.

Bolter & Gromala (2003) argue for a dichotomy of Structuralists (like Berners-Lee, Norman, Nielsen) are and Designers.

Structuralists

• are separatists: content and form is separated
• Nielsen (2001): we want to discuss the play and not the costumes of the actors of a theater play (I [mck] don’t think this is a reasonable statement)

Designers

• are untiarians: content and form can’t be separated
• a webpage is an experience
• Siegel (1997, Creating Killer WebSites): images etc. are not window dressing but essential to the communicative experience
• Computers don’t feel like toasters (an argument against Normans (1999) idea of information appliances, mck). They feel more like book, photo albums and tv sets (computers as media)

Bolter & Gromala (2003, p. 6): “Every digital artifact oscillated between beeing transparent and reflective”. Beeing invisible is not appropriate in all circumstances: what is needed is a rythm between being transparent and reflective.