Peter Fargas
Independent Research & Prototypisation
https://informatik-handwerk.de
Leipzig, Germany
Release date: November 2012
Last update:
Link to authoritative version

Clean Interface Communication

☰ Content

Preface
on the structure of this document

Design prior to my version of --so you can do your own math of-- meaning. Prior to design-- setting of perception level. Decoders might wish to skip to the design immediatelly(third paragraph) and treat the document in cyclic fashion. As I hope, this leads to the best possible symetry of information. At any point, you might decide to try to experience the product instead and return afterwards(or not). Backburner encapsulates a short conclusion for the ones interested in my path, via advice for yours, and is superfluous. The heavy, decoder, and the neutral, a supplied, routes might be too complicated to read. In such case, I recommend following: Introduction, Behaviour, Implications and if you wish to help me- Roadmap. The most dramatic paradigmatical points are followed by (!) -- their possible escaping of attention would defeat the purpose of this document.

Introduction
motivation, purpose, direction

This communication media design originates as a solution to numerous problems --I'm struggling with daily and thus-- we are currently having. Although I will touch on this subject later, percieving or not percieving them, is largely irrelevant. As much as I am sorry for this, I feel the need, to include here the expression of my personal opinion: that this design seems to me beneficiary not only to (no polarization needed) people of high cognition/perception capabilities as well as the ones living on the tribe-driven side of life. I would not publicize this design if I thought otherwise. Please, let me know if "this design does not live to my aspirations" meaning I don't manage to fulfill my intentions.

Decisions
raw information on design (disconnected description)

The information at the end points of the media can be system-categorized by "identity of the other side"(composite if you wish), "direction", "provider of the transport" and "encoding of the information". The traditional split of inbox/outbox (merging here and there in "email threads") is refined into directly accessable selectors of the finest granularity. Structuring those in a simple dynamic tree display (offers aggregative inclusion/exclusion filters) of depth one (per system-category) seems necessary and feels satisfactory to me -- where an entry can belong to multiple branches. Each of those entries should allow own settings (which traditionally/could aggregate 'upwards'/override 'downwards'). These settings are in most cases of twofold kind: the usual, 'shared' settings - which are bundled with message to influence its transfer at various points of it's journey. The other are the privately kept, 'local'(and finer) behaviour specifications of the system -- in their nature very similiar(!).

Behaviour
problems meet design (in-sight)

The design pulls itself together at the following point: Under the hood, it introduces a full transport layer between display and storage and thus a family of "post-/pre-network" paths a message can take; enabling, on the interface surface, (example)clearcut lines of avoidance/positive filter on perception of specific category of information resp. the outgoing variant(!) of this. This is very different to that which some information-sharing media offer and "almost"(not at all) fits this description. The model described here is much stronger and cleaner (a couple of examples: bidirection, ad-hoc problem avoiding vs. problem solved by design; wall(irreversable interpersonal damage settings) vs membrane(breathing); persona-sacrification; no possibility of resp. forced protocol; system-knows-better; all seem the same; yes-no thinking; etc. ). I'd like to mention that my understanding of 'full transport layer' and 'user interface' is stronger than the usual picture.

Current
prototype implementation details

No network module. Persistanceless. Sample data or no data.

Implications
model usage

The instance of the system starts from very basic default, like a(some) traditional communication media. Access to; coarse selectors overshadow, by convenience, the finer selectors and in this sense user's proceeding deeper into the capabilities is guided (base->selectors->settings) but not powered, returning to base usage has a better gradient. Those areas which user opens and keeps open, I'd like to stress this; mimick (in the negative spectrum: helps to cope with) user's evolution of interpersonal relationships that every communication inevitably brings. The management of those areas do not need any special care (crucial aspect of the system), for one knows very well what are ones terms/dependency/emotionality/... with others.

Backburner

What I am worried about, is not concentrating on crafting sollutions to problems but crafting something at "could do something with this". I have no advice for you here. As to the problematics of designing digital media, let me offer you a nifty sollution which leads to a puzzle you will hopefully love your life long: via stating problem of far overrated existence and destructive implications -- the underestimation of users.