深入探讨ddos_什么是概念上的深入探讨

深入探讨ddos

What exactly is an interface? When asked this question most people would be able to point out what an interface is as an “object”. One might say “An interface is the navigation system of an operating system” or “An interface is the skills bar in a video game”, however, when asked to explain what this concept is in its pure form, not as a particular object. Most people, would probably draw a blank in their mind. How is it possible that in a world full of interfaces we find it so hard to explain what an interface is?

w ^帽子究竟是一个接口？ 当被问到这个问题时，大多数人将能够指出接口是什么“对象” 。 有人可能会说“界面是操作系统的导航系统”或“界面是视频游戏中的技能栏” ，但是当被要求解释该概念的纯粹形式而不是特定对象时，可能会说。 大多数人可能会在脑海中茫茫。 在充满接口的世界中，我们怎么可能很难解释接口是什么？

Why is this even an important question to ask? Simply put, the more we develop our vernacular to discuss abstract concepts, the easier it becomes to discuss issues surrounding them. These discussions bleed into every facet of our lives from the work we or our companies do, to the personal choices you make every day. In this article we will delve into a purely conceptual view of the interface. While this is by no means an end-all-be-all in defining the concept, it may serve you to better express the ways in which you perceive this interesting staple of our modern world.

为什么这甚至是一个重要的问题？ 简而言之，我们越是用白话来讨论抽象概念，就越容易讨论围绕它们的问题。 从我们或公司所做的工作，到您每天做出的个人选择，这些讨论都渗入我们生活的方方面面。 在本文中，我们将深入研究接口的概念。 虽然这绝不是定义概念的万事俱备的方法，但它可能有助于您更好地表达您对现代世界这个有趣主角的看法。

In “The Unworkable Interface” Alexander Galloway explores this difficult to explain concept in great detail. Arguing for the idea that the more successful a technology is the more invisible it becomes. It becomes a nigh indiscernible commonality in our lives, or as he specifies “To succeed, then, is at best self-deception and at worst self-annihilation. One must work hard to cast the glow of unwork.” (Galloway, 2008, p. 931).

亚历山大·加洛韦(Alexander Galloway)在“无法使用的界面”中详细探讨了这一难以解释的概念。 有人认为，技术越成功，它就越无形。 它成为我们生活中几乎不可区分的共同点，或者正如他所指出的那样： “那么，成功最多是自欺欺人，最糟糕的是自我毁灭。 一个人必须努力工作，以释放不工作的光芒。” (Galloway，2008，p.931) 。

He continues with the analysis that we become aware of our systems and their existence only at the precipice of failure. Unless we actively search for the inner workings of our systems we will remain blissfully unaware of their machinations until their “inevitable” failure alerts us to their presence (Galloway, 2008, p. 931). One could extend these notions into everything from our political systems to the operating systems of our personal computers, the soundness of the idea can entrench itself into the mind rather easily.

他继续进行分析，以使我们仅在出现故障时才意识到我们的系统及其存在。 除非我们积极地寻找系统的内部运行机制，否则我们将永远不会幸福地意识到它们的阴谋诡计，直到它们的“ 不可避免的 ”故障提醒我们注意它们的存在(Galloway，2008，第931页)。 可以将这些概念扩展到从我们的政治系统到我们的个人计算机的操作系统的所有内容中，这个想法的健全性可以相当容易地将其根深蒂固。

He latches onto the idea of the “significant surface” by Vilém Flusser, as a “two-dimensional plane with meaning embedded in it or delivered through it” (Galloway, 2008, p. 936) as a surrogate for our modern notions of a screen. Analyzing the traditional views of interfaces as doorways or windows by stating “The doorway/window/threshold definition is so prevalent today that interfaces are often taken to be synonymous with media themselves.” (Galloway, 2008, p. 936) What exactly does this tell us about how we see concept of the interface? Is it that the interface as a technology seeks to obliterate its very existence as a separate entity from the media or content it exhibits and gives access to? A useful tool to maneuver around this rather difficult to comprehend notion might be the idea of the interface as a transparent “object” which is explored both by Anne Friedberg and Stefka Hristova.

他将VilémFlusser的“重要表面”这一概念作为“一个二维平面，其含义被嵌入其中或通过其中传递” (Galloway，2008，p.936)作为我们现代观念的替代物。屏幕。 通过阐述“门口/窗口/阈值定义在当今如此普遍，以至于接口通常被视为媒体本身的代名词”来分析接口作为门口或窗户的传统观点。 (加洛韦(Galloway)，2008年，第936页) 这到底告诉我们我们如何看待接口的概念？ 作为一种技术，接口是否试图消除其作为与所展示并提供访问权的媒体或内容分开的实体的地位？ 围绕这个相当难以理解的概念进行操作的有用工具可能是接口作为透明“对象”的想法，这是安妮·弗里德伯格(Anne Friedberg)和史蒂夫卡·赫里斯托娃(Stefka Hristova)共同探索的。

In her text “Blue Screen of Death: disrupting transparent windows, composite media, and the aesthetics of continuity” Hristova explores the discourse around the sanctity of the Graphical User Interface (GUI) as a unified whole, specifically she focuses on how the Blue Screen of Death, also known as the BSoD, which obliterates this notion of unity, revealing to us the underlying systems that form our visual interfaces (Hristova, 2017). Circling back to the statements made by Galloway on how systems make themselves invisible until they fail and we are made aware of their presence.

赫里斯托娃(Hristova)在她的著作“死亡的蓝屏：破坏透明的窗口，复合媒体和连续性的美感”中探讨了图形用户界面(GUI)的统一性，特别是她对蓝屏的关注。死亡，也被称为BSoD，它消除了这一统一概念，向我们揭示了构成我们视觉界面的底层系统(Hristova，2017年)。 回到盖洛韦关于系统如何使其自身不可见直到它们失效并且我们意识到它们的存在的声明。

Why is it so important to explore this idea? That our systems (and thereby our interfaces) hide themselves from our view? To an average user of a screen whether or not this is the case might be completely irrelevant. To them pondering whether or not this mechanism of deception is ethical or dangerous might be irrelevant, that is until they reveal themselves. From privacy concerns on platforms such as Facebook to the ways these systems warp our views of the real world from body image perceptions to violence spurred by misinformation spread on opaque messaging apps. The tendency for systems to embed themselves and camouflage their existence as just a fact of our modern lives is a troubling prospect.

为什么探索这个想法如此重要？ 我们的系统(以及我们的界面)对我们隐藏了吗？ 对于屏幕的普通用户来说是否如此，可能完全不相关。 对于他们来说，思考这种欺骗机制是道德的还是危险的可能是无关紧要的，直到他们揭露自己。 从诸如Facebook之类的平台上的隐私问题到这些系统扭曲我们对现实世界的看法的方式，从人体图像感知到不透明消息应用程序上传播的错误信息引发的暴力。 作为我们现代生活的事实，系统倾向于自我嵌入并伪装其存在的趋势令人担忧。

There are several important ideas she zeroes in on:

她将重点放在几个重要的想法上：

In her review of the work of Anne Friedberg, these notions of the opaqueness are understood mainly in the dichotomy between the materiality of computer screens themselves and the perception of them as transparent thresholds (Hristova, 2017, p. 835). One might be able to digest this through the general confusion that pervades cultural ideas of what a computer screen and virtuality are. Why did a company like Apple invoke the idea of the Cloud for its branding of the iCloud? Signifying not only that it is a spatial place through symbolism but also directing attention to the “immateriality” of this place. While in truth it is just an earth-bound server network of humongous proportions. Even though this information is not redacted or secret by any means, its natural obfuscation leads to a sense of opaqueness to most anything related to our technological systems. When one hears that it is just a continuously backed up network of server systems backing up one’s information, this feels less distant and less secure. Easily prone to mismanagement and data loss, since all data in the end is related to a physical object, namely the hard-drive or solid-state drive.

在她对安妮·弗里德伯格(Anne Friedberg)的工作的回顾中，这些不透明的概念主要是在计算机屏幕本身的实质性与将它们视为透明阈值之间的二分法之间理解的(Hristova，2017，p.835)。 人们可能能够通过普遍的困惑来消化这一点，这些困惑普遍存在于关于计算机屏幕和虚拟性的文化观念中。 为什么像Apple这样的公司在其iCloud品牌中援引Cloud的想法？ 通过象征主义不仅表明它是一个空间地方，而且将注意力转向这个地方的“非物质性”。 实际上，这只是一个庞大的地球服务器网络。 即使不以任何方式编辑或保密此信息，其自然的混淆也会导致对与我们的技术系统相关的大多数事物不透明的感觉。 当听到有人只是一个不断备份的服务器系统网络在备份一个人的信息时，就会感到距离越来越远，安全性也越来越差。 由于最后所有数据都与物理对象(即硬盘驱动器或固态驱动器)有关，因此容易出现管理不善和数据丢失的情况。

Secondly, through the analysis of the work of Wendy Chun. She explores the view that the computer transitioned from being a “viewing machine” into being a “visualizing technology”. This being a fundamental shift in the understanding of computational devices. She writes “The popularization of the graphic-based operating system in place of the command line programming marked a significant shift away from the perception of the computer as a writing machine “ (Hristova, 2017, p. 835). One could argue that the command line she speaks of is the “purest” form of interface, one that does not base itself in self-deception or theatrics of representation. This switch in perception could be taken as the point where aesthetics ingrained itself into the very fabric of technological progress. Becoming a tool in this ever-changing space.

其次，通过对温迪·春的工作的分析。 她探讨了一种观点，认为计算机已从“查看机器”转变为“可视化技术”。 这是对计算设备的理解的根本转变。 她写道： “基于图形的操作系统代替命令行编程的普及标志着计算机从书写机器的认知上有了很大的转变” (Hristova，2017年，第835页) 。 有人可能会说她所说的命令行是“最纯净的”界面形式，这种界面并不以自欺欺人或代表戏剧为基础。 这种观念上的转变可以被视为美学根深蒂固地融入技术进步的基础。 在这个瞬息万变的空间中成为一种工具。

After getting a general grasp of these notions we can circle back onto the work of Galloway and his definition of the interface. “The interface is this state of “being on the boundary.” It is that moment where one significant material is understood as distinct from another significant material. In other words, an interface is not a thing, an interface is always an effect. It is always a process or a translation.” (Galloway, 2008, p. 938). To minds trained to see interfaces as the objects which control effects it might be a hard thought to accept. However, this definition allows us to develop our vernacular in order to discuss these concepts with greater accuracy. In turn he ushers into his work a term by François Dagognet that of the interface as a “fertile nexus”. A special “space” in between where elements or systems mix and cause effects (Galloway, 2008, p. 938).

大致了解了这些概念之后，我们可以回顾Galloway的工作及其对接口的定义。 “界面处于“处于边界”状态。 在这一时刻，一种重要的物质被理解为与另一种重要的物质不同。 换句话说，界面不是事物，界面始终是一种效果。 它总是一个过程或翻译。” (Galloway，2008，p.938) 。 对于训练有素的人来说，将界面视为控制效果的对象是很难想到的。 但是，此定义使我们能够发展白话语，以便更准确地讨论这些概念。 反过来，他将弗朗索瓦·达格涅特(FrançoisDagognet)的术语引入接口，将其称为“肥沃的纽带”。 在元素或系统混合并引起效果之间的特殊“空间”(Galloway，2008，第938页)。

Through his work in exploring the nature of interface Galloway affixes towards the limitations inherent in all the analogies of doors, windows or thresholds as a way of understanding the interface. Which inexorably must give rise to a new idea through attempts at transcending these barriers in vernacular. He finds the material to fix this gap in expression in the term he dubbed “The Intraface”; “the intraface, that is, an interface internal to the interface. The key here is that the interface is within the aesthetic, not a window or doorway separating the space that spans from here to there.” (Galloway, 2008, p. 944). Although undeniably an interesting concept to explore, due to the length and brevity of this article, we will have to leave it for another time.

通过研究界面的性质，加洛韦将门，窗或门槛的所有类比固有的局限性固定为理解界面的一种方式。 通过试图克服这些障碍，无可避免地必须产生一个新的想法。 他找到了可以弥补这一表达空白的材料，他称之为“ The Intraface”。 “接口，即接口内部的接口。 这里的关键是界面在美学之内，而不是将从这里到那里的空间分隔开的窗户或门口。” (Galloway，2008，p.944) 。 尽管无可否认，这是一个有趣的概念，但由于本文篇幅简短，我们将不得不再讨论一次。

This article is not meant to provide you with any practical advice, it is more so a form of food for thought. Especially for anyone who deals with media on a daily basis. In the Bibliography are several texts which have been used to construct this article, they may be of use to anyone who wants a deeper dive into any of the concepts discussed here.

本文无意为您提供任何实用建议，而更多是一种思考的方式。 特别是对于每天与媒体打交道的人。 参考书目中有数篇文章已用于构建本文，它们可能对希望深入研究本文讨论的任何概念的人有用。

参考书目 (Bibliography)

Galloway, A. (2008). The Unworkable Interface. New Literary History, 39, 931–955.

加洛韦，A。(2008)。 无法使用的界面。 《新文学史》，第39卷 ，第931-955页。

Hristova, S. (2017). Blue Screen of Death: disrupting transparent windows, composite media, and the aesthetics of continuity. Continuum, 33, 833–843.

Hristova，S.(2017年)。 死亡的蓝屏：破坏透明的窗户，复合材料和连续性的美感。 连续 33，833–843。

Friedberg, A. (2009). The Virtual Window: From Alberti to Microsoft. The MIT Press.

Friedberg，A.(2009年)。 虚拟窗口：从Alberti到Microsoft。 麻省理工学院出版社。

Monteiro, S. (2014). Fit to frame: image and edge in contemporary interfaces. Screen, 55, 360–378.

Monteiro，S.(2014年)。 适合框架：现代界面中的图像和边缘。 屏幕 55，360-378。

UX Para Minas Pretas (UX For Black Women), a Brazilian organization focused on promoting equity of Black women in the tech industry through initiatives of action, empowerment, and knowledge sharing. Silence against systemic racism is not an option. Build the design community you believe in. UX Para Minas Pretas (UX For Black Women)，这是一个巴西组织，致力于通过采取行动，赋权和知识共享的举措来促进科技行业中的黑人女性平等。 对系统性种族主义保持沉默是不可行的。 建立您相信的设计社区。

翻译自: https://uxdesign.cc/what-is-an-interface-a-conceptual-deep-dive-37049c184b7

深入探讨ddos