Hemmed in by signposts: Metaphors limit the scope of social media innovation

Long exposure of car tail lights

It can all become a blur very quickly

Metaphors are a crucial part of how we relate to the digital world. They are crucial in one sense as the low-level languages that computers use are incom­pre­hensible to humans. All our spangly, shiny Powerpoint present­a­tions and music libraries are streams of hexidecimal or binary digits to our processors and disk drives. Unless you’re very special these low-level digital streams are gobbledygook and even if you are special enough to make sense of them they’re certainly not anything like the files most of us expect to see or listen to.

With the invention of the graphical user interface (GUI) metaphor became a much more explicit part of our computing exper­ience. A host of analogies were launched upon us in a rush, windows, scrolling, dragging, trash and even document. These terms were needed to help us cope with this new world and GUIs were crucial in the spread of computing from the lab to the wider world.

While these metaphors were initially liber­ating they have become limiting partic­u­larly as digital inform­ation weaves itself into increas­ingly intricate patterns in our lives. Venkatesh Rao from the Xerox Innovation Group has written an inter­esting post on Mashable on this issue, specifically how the metaphors that served us well in the past now limit us.

Somewhere to start from

Back in the ancient days of the ‘80s, when Apple launched the GUI, personal computers were used mostly as analogues of old tools. We typed letters and tabulated spread­sheets. Perhaps this was enough of a revolution to take on board in on bite. It certainly was a revolution. Word processing made it possible to efficiently edit existing documents in a way that was impossible a few years earlier. They also made collab­or­ation possible in new ways. What would have been accom­plished by a trail of arcane editorial notation and another trip to the typing pool could now be completed in a fraction of the time.

It is in the realm of word processing that the first big metaphor shear occurs. In his wonderful book In the Beginning was the Command Line Neal Stephenson examines the term document. As a writer he has a particular attachment to his work and the sense of document meaning to record perman­ently is important to him. Digital files are not neces­sarily permanent though. Strings of digits captured as electro­mag­netic marks on a disk are subject to all sorts of perils and if one crucial area of the disk, an address block for example, is damaged the whole file can be cease to exist.

In this example the metaphor encourages us to imbue the digital object with qualities is doesn’t have, permanence, but increas­ingly the metaphors we habitually employ in attempt to describe our digital world limit us. The computers we have in our homes now are incredibly powerful and their potential is massive. We limit ourselves through the mental models we have constructed to under­stand them. This is partic­u­larly evident as we struggle to under­stand the potential of social media.

What is Twitter?

The question of what is Twitter gets people reaching for metaphor in an instant. It’s a conver­sation, a party or a stream depending on who you talk to, but all of these descrip­tions are like the story of the blind men and the elephant as they only tell part of the story. We have created a world where our old models are less and less relevant. In fact they may even be damaging or at least limiting to the potential of our new media.

To see Twitter as a conver­sation deemphasises the broadcast potential of the medium and the party metaphor struggles with the complexity of how different friend sets affect the perception of the inform­ation shared. The stream metaphor seems to be the best fit. Twitter is a fluxional medium. You can’t visit the same Twitter twice for it is not the same Twitter and you are not the same man. Streams are fairly homogenous entities though and once you get close Twitter is far from homogenous. There are lots of chunks of different kinds of inform­ation in that stream.

Media like Twitter are curious in that they seem to be both high and low defin­ition. They demand attention by a pageant of inform­ation (like a film) but they also require conscious parti­cip­ation to extract value (like a comic book). The volume of inform­ation is enormous but the character limit on individual posts restricts the amount of inform­ation an individual message can contain. Films and comic books used to be very different media but now we have a medium that contains elements of both exper­i­ences our mental models are being stretched.

So what’s the problem?

The problem with forcing flawed models on how we think of social media and digital inform­ation in general is that we limit the scope of how we can use the tool with the model. If Twitter is seen a conver­sa­tional medium then that metaphor shades our perception of what the platform is for and the individual voice is seen as more valuable than the aggregate of the inform­ation broadcast. This isn’t in itself bad but limits in the scope of our thoughts are powerful.

Google has announced it is to stop devel­oping Wave. This was an attempt to create a collab­or­ative commu­nic­ation platform. To risk a metaphor, a modern take on email using the technology available now rather than sticking to the protocols and concepts invented in 1965.

Wave floundered for many reasons and one was that email has an incredibly powerful hold over how we think about online commu­nic­ation. Wave was collab­or­ative and fluxional whereas email narrow­casts discrete slices of inform­ation with clear authorship and date of creation. I wonder if the concept of a mutable, parti­cip­atory and plastic medium was just too far from the concept of mail to easily absorb.

As the possib­il­ities of how we can distribute and structure data expand our models of thinking about what we are doing will become increas­ingly important. This is not an issue that will pass with time either. There are young­sters who have never used a typewriter who spend huge amounts of their life typing using a keyboard layout invented to stop mechanical machines from jamming.

The image Light Trails on the Square by Rich Anderson is used under a Creative Commons license

About Ruben Kenig

I used to play punk, then jazz. Somehow I went to music school to study composition. I wrote music and made sound design for theatre and studied film music. In the interstitial spaces of this I made websites as a content manager and project manager. I sometimes publish articles at rubken.net.
This entry was posted in Technology and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.