communication research in the design of communication interfaces and systems

Communication Research in theDesign of Communication Interfacesand Systems

by Frank Biocca, University of North Carolina

In order to reconquer the machine and subdue it to human putposes,one must first understand it and assimilate it. So far we have embracedthe machine without fully understanding it. (Mumford, 1934, p. 334)

In order to understand the phenomena surrounding a new technology,we must open the question of design-the interaction between under-standing and creation. (Winograd & Flores, 1987, p. 4)

Communication research seems forever ordained to consider and recon-sider the means of communication, the machinery with which we createmeaning. In many ways, communication research is about how humanscreate techniques and technologies to turn each others' thoughts intoeach others' experiences.

Lately, our attention has been drawn to the circuits, interfaces, andfiber-optic cables that increasingly bind our minds together into giant net-works-the giant sea of information and codified experiences recentlydubbed "cyberspace" (Benedikt, 1992). The introduction of virtual realitytechnology spurs us to think once again about the relations betweenthought, the senses, and the machinery that facilitate communication ex-pression and distribution (e.g., Biocca, 1992aj Biocca & Levy, in press).Before each new communication technology becomes an invisible part ofour second nature, its novelty increases our awareness of how muchcommunication is socially constructed (e.g., Biocca, 1987, 1988). As inThe Wizard of Oz, the flutter of the curtain makes the human operator ofthe giant machinery of communication suddenly visible: He is us.

Frank Biocca is an associate professor and the director of the Center for Research in Jour-nalism and Mass Communication at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. This ar-ticle began while the author was on leave at Stanford and the University of California atBerkeley. He would like to thank Byron Reeves, Don Roberts, Steve Chaffee, Richard Cole,and Todd Gitlin for making his stay in California possible, pleasant, and productive.

Copyright @ 1993Journalo/Communication 43(4), Autumn. 0021-9916/93/$5.00

59

~

--, , ~ ~ ,her, I seek something more basic and immediate, My words are moti-~d

by a sense of urgency, a feeling that over the next 20 years the evo-:)n of communication technologies may offer a critical--can I bring;elf

to-write bistoric?-opportunity for researchers to positively shapechannels of mediated human communication. I wonder if communi-

on research is well equipped to meet the challenge. I hope that it is. Ithat many research paradigms inadvertently condemn communica-research to the role of spectator in the long march of communicationmology.

Communication research cheers or boos, but the march oflmunication technology goes on regardless. If we really believe thatlmunication environments are socially constructed, then can commu-tion research aggressively engage in their construction?this article I w~nt to focus on communication research's role in the::eption,

infancy, and adolescence of a young medium. There must be.1e in the development of a new communication medium, interface, orronment when its form, like that of a child, is still pliable, when the~s of its social construction are most fluid. At the birth of each newmunication medium and system we should not ask whether the tech-'gy is a liberator or a criminal-the answer is always that it is both andler.

I'm reminded of the journalist from "ABC's Nightline" who askedvhether virtual reality was a "good thing" or a "bad thing." Rather,Lewis

Mumford, he might more profitably have asked how we candue it to human purposes" 0934, p. 334).

'st, I will sketch the social setting-an historic juncture in the commu-ion environment. Then I will try to sketch out a possible research re-Ise,

a "human factors approach" to communication research.

~

---...The name doesn't matter. What matters is that every major de-ment

in human communication has begun with a major new de-ment in communication technology. (Schramm, 1988, p. 341)

.~ ~~ Itively stable media technologies. Our mass media interfaces-

~ -In ~lIlcon Valley where I once worked, I had a chance to return to my earlier interestsrlmunication technology and cognition. With time to think, I critically relistened tostant echoes of the Marshall McLuhan lectures I heard as an undergraduate in Cana-lis article and others emerged as part of my attempt to refocus my questions aboutunication technologies and my approach to communication research.

~

ommunication Interfaces and Systems

books, newspapers, radio, and television-remained relatively un-changed from the late 1940s to the 1990s. Wilbur Schramm, a father of theacademic discipline of communication research, was there in the firstdecade, and he was able to sense the changing, turbulent communicationcurrents in the last decade of his life. During the intervening 50 years,technological innovation did not radically alter the face of our media in-terfaces or the experience of mediated communication. Media evolvedslowly. Most research, especially experimental and critical research, fo-cused mostly on those elements of the media that were most pliable andchangeable: media messages.

This is changing. The computer has evolved from a glorified typewriter-calculator into a major communication medium. From 1980 to 1990 theannual consumption of personal computers increased by approximately900 percent. Expenditures on personal computers rose by 1100 percentduring that same decade, and in 1991 the computer industry was a $43.2billion industry (CBEMA, 1991). The personal computer is only the begin-ning of a larger wave of smart, interactive communication devices andsystems (Millis on & LeGrow, 1993).

The collision and merger of the communication and computer indus-tries is sending a shock wave of change and instability through themediated communication environment. This can be characterized as therestructuring-some say convergence, I say expansion-of (a) communi-cation systems and (b) communication interfaces.

The Expansion of Cyberspace

Communication systems can be defined as follows: Communication Sys-tems = [Transmission Cbannel(s), Organizational Infrastructures, Com-munication Interface(s)}.

Our communication systems have entered a state of flux. Americans usea number of transmission channels: the broadcasting spectrum, the tele-phone system's copper wires, cable's coaxial wires, the cellular spectrum,direct broadcast satellites, and fiber-optic cabling. The organizations thatown each channel are fighting for the opportunity to pump more andmore mediated information into the home, the car, and, ultimately, themind. The spread of digital communication methods and informationcompression is allowing each one of these channels to offer more infor-mation and an expanded but overlapping range of communicationservices. The organizational infrastructures associated with these trans-mission channels-the telephone, broadcast, cable, and computer indus-tries-are entering a period of intense competition and restructuring. It isa struggle; new structures and alliances are being formed. As a result, theinterfaces and information flows associated with these institutions are influx.

The social communication environment is expanding and restructuring;

61

Journal of Communication, Autumn 1993

our mediated communication experiences are certain to take on new fea.tures and patterns as we become more strongly interconnected by ourcommunication systems.

The protean nature of the computer is such that it can act like a ma-chine or like a language to be shaped and exploited. It is a medium thatcan dynamically simulate the details of any other medium, includingmedia that cannot exist physically. It is not a tool, although it can actlike many tools. It is the first meta medium, and as such it has degrees offreedom for representation and expression never before encounteredand as yet barely investigated. (Kay, 1984)

Alan Kay, master designer at Xerox Park, Apple, and MIT's Media Lab,lays out the challenge for communication scholars very clearly. The com-puter can give birth to a medium that can simulate any other medium. Atthe same time it offers a means of communication and expression that hasyet to be explored and understood (i.e., virtual reality?). How can com-munication research take up this challenge?

The interface and the type of communication that it supports is in-evitably a central concern of human communication research. By way ofdefinition I offer the following: Communication Interface = (PhysicalMedia, Codes, Information) + Sensorimotor Channels.

Like the communication systems to which they are linked, communica-tion interfaces are also changing. The communication interface is becom-ing more complex and flexible as it addresses more communicationneeds. For example, advanced communication and simulation interfaceslike virtual reality attempt to engage a wider range of sensory channels(Biocca, 1992b; Biocca & Delaney, in press). Within each sensory chan-nel, sophisticated displays are presenting a wider bandwidth of informa-tion. For example, projection HD1V (high-definition television) fills moreof the visual field at higher levels of resolution. Further developments invirtual reality interfaces have as their explicit logic the attempt to matchand, maybe, surpass the sensory variety and information density of thephysical environment. The communication interface is expanding to en-velop more of the senses.

The phrase interactivity is often used. It is a misleading term. At itsmost basic, it simply describes the fact that advanced communication in-terfaces

are increasingly responsive to somatic activity: behaviors like keypresses, mouse movements, eye movements, body position, as well aschanges in autonomic activity. New input devices connect more and moresomatic activity to the interface and to the communication system (Biocca&

Delaney, in press). The body is being immersed into the communication

interface.Let me summarize the historical juncture I have described. Communica-

tion systems and interfaces are not just being merged, they are being ex-panded: expanded coverage of the sensory channels, expanded range of

~

Communication Interfaces and Systems

somatic inputs, expanded geographic coverage, expanded bandwidth ofinformation and services. Like the physical universe, cyberspace is ex-panding.

Responding to Changes in Systems and Interfaces

What are the implications for communication research? History suggeststhat it is extremely likely that communication theory and research will beinfluenced by changes in the communication environment. Faced with in-creased changes in the communication environment, communication re-searchers could simply be reactive: forecast or evaluate developments,trends, and effects. This response remains important. But how mightcommunication research help achieve Mumford's goal and subdue com-munication systems and interfaces to human purposes? If we are enteringa period of creative instability and expansion, communication researchmight be more proactive. Researchers might find it valuable to not justcritique or measure, but also participate in the social construction of me-diated communication-in communication design. Communication re-searchers might try to creatively engage and influence the evolutionaryprocess of media design-of human-computer interaction.

Upon analysis, we find that not just each medium but each act of com-munication is an act of design. For example, this sentence is an act of de-sign. If researchers systematically study these acts of communication de-sign-be they psychological or social-then communication science mustbe, in part, a science of design. We often ask how humans design mes-sages and media, and how those designs somehow redesign theirthoughts, behaviors, and social environments. We are increasingly awarethat communication is an environment, and that we participate in its de-sign.

To use an existing term, let me suggest what might be called thehuman factors approach to communication research and design. I bor-row the term human factors from a large and growing interdisciplinarycommunity of researchers. Borrowing a term is often dangerous. Theterm human factors may carry with it some unwanted baggage. I willprobably not be able to avoid this problem here. But as with other exam-ples of paradigmatic appropriation (Kuhn, 1970), I hope to begin theprocess of tailoring the term for communication research in the course ofthis article.

In the fields of engineering, computer science, and psychology, thewords human factors refer to important aspects of human performance,behavior, and desire that must be considered in the design of any ma-chine, hardware, program, or information system. For example, interdis-ciplinary teams of engineers, computer scientists, and psychologists areconcerned with human factors when designing a new communication in-terface, or, more generally, human-computer interaction (Biocca, 1992b;

63

Tournai of Communication, Autumn 1993

Card, Moran, & Newell, 1983; Laurel, 1990, 1991; Rubenstein & Hersh,1984; Shneiderman, 1992; Vassilou, 1984). Like communication re-searchers, many human factors and human-computer interaction re-searchers live on the boundaries between traditional fields. Many can befound at the intersection of engineering, computer science, psychology,and anthropology (e.g., Baecker & Buxton, 1987; Hancock, 1987; Ruben-stein & Hersh, 1984; Slavendy, 1987; Wickens, 1984; Woodson, 1981). Tofully consider various human factors, human-computer interface designteams are often interdisciplinary (e.g., Apple's design group; see Kim,1990). One can increasingly find communication researchers involved ininterface design (e.g., Biocca & Levy, in press; Fish, Kraut, Root, & Rice,1992; Gay & Grose-Ngate, 1993; Heeter, 1992; Meyer, Applewhite, & Bioc-ca, 1992; Nilan, 1992). In some ways, the human factors approach to com-munication may signal a return to the creative interdisciplinary synergythat seemed to characterize the spirit of communication research in itsearly years (e.g., Cherry, 1957).

A concern with human factors has become central to the design ofhuman-computer interfaces (HCI). The design of most technologies, in-cluding communication technologies, has moved from what Bullinger(1986) calls a "technocentric approach" (technology controls man) to an"anthropocentric approach" (man controls technology). The technocen-tric approach is exemplified by the work of industrial engineer FredrickTaylor (Nelson, 1980) and the Gilbreths (Mandel, 1989), whose time andmotion studies sought to make humans conform to the machine process-es of industry. By contrast, the goal of many HCI researchers is to havethe interface conform to the thinking, the objectives, and the habits of aparticular group of users (Shneiderman, 1992). If one could summarizethe prevailing attitude of human factors researchers in one sentence, itmight read: The user should not have to conform to the machine; the ma-chine should conform to the user.

The intense study of human factors in human-computer interactionemerged from the design of "life-critical" computer systems such as airtraffic controller systems, nuclear power plant control systems, advancedfighter cockpits, and medical emergency systems. In such systems, failureof the computer interface to conform to the information and communica-tion needs of the users could lead to death and disaster. The interface be-tween the computer and the human is a communication system, a mes-saging system for encoding and decoding information. In life-criticalsystems the communication interface must facilitate the critical exchangeof life-and-death information.

Communication Design as Theory and Research

Of all technologies, communication technologies provide the greatesthuman factors challenge. It is interesting to note that the very word tech-

54


Table 1. Examples of Human Factors Considered in Designing Communicationand Human-Computer Interfaces

CognitivePerception and psychophysics: capacities and properties of human sensory

channelsAttention: reaction time, time sharing, workload, and fatigueMotivation: individual differences, task motivation, emotional satisfactionDecision-making and judgment: risk perception, constraint satisfactionProcedural memory skill learning, usage, and forgettingSemantic memory meaning construction and mental models

InstrumentalIndividual communIcation goals: related to interface usageOrganizational communication goals: related to interface adoption and

usageSocial communication goals: economic, public policy. social advocacyRelationshIp to other communication instruments: range, access. usage, and

perceived utility of other Interfaces

NormativeCultural variation in communication expectation, performance, or normsContextual and environmental factors: affecting or defining performanceEthical considerations: related to Interface use or abuse

ExpressiveCode usage: extent and usage of existing communication codesMessage variability: likely range of message content and contexts

SomaticAnthropometry: relationship of human body shape to the Interface hardwareBiomechanics: forces. motion, and feedback patterns of the human body dur-

Ing use of the interface

nology is a merger of the Greek words tecbne, meaning "art, craft," andlogos, meaning "word, speech." The origins of the word suggest that com-munication is at the heart of technology. There may be something essen-tially different about considering human factors in the design of commu-nication technology-systems that are true to the early Greek sense andimprove the craft and art of making signs, words, and speech. More thanjust architectural or engineering design, communication systems subsumeboth mind and body into simulations of physical and social reality-toborrow an emerging term, into virtual realities.

Communication science has two arms that grapple with the forms andstructures of human communication. One arm tends towards basic sci-ence. Our basic understanding of the human factors themselves is an ex-tension of the basic sciences. The interdisciplinary human factors re-search team may consider a number of human factors when designinginterfaces, including communication interfaces. Table 1 lists some ofthese.

Communication science has another arm, one that tries to design andbuild. Design is a form of human expression; it builds on the essentialfreedom and indeterminacy of human communication. Its success must

65

journal of Communication, Autumn 1993

be measured not just by the truth of its principles but also by its ability toinfluence the design of communication tools and environments. Other-wise, communication science is like the architect whose buildings arenever built.

It would be narrow-minded to merely dismiss design as the applicationof communication research. Design principles are theories of communica-tion. Functioning designs, like a new computer interface, can be modelsof communication theory. An interface design can also be a form of ex-perimentation, especially when systematic evaluation is a part of a designimplementation. Designing interfaces as vehicles for theory building andexperimentation has a key advantage: The concrete, specific details ofimplementation force the researcher to specify his or her ideas in detail.Theory, interface design, experimentation, evaluation, and interface re-design can be part of one continuous flow of proactive communicationscholarship (see Biocca, 1993).

Habermas (1981) argues that there is a decoupling of what he calls the"system" and the "lifeworld." The lifeworld is increasingly subordinatedto the demands of the system. Distrust of technology emerges in part fromthe feeling that our sphere of freedom is being restricted by the system(i.e., the scientific-technical-industrial apparatus). In the past our reactionto the computer was a reaction to one of the most visible parts of the im-personal industrial system. Computer cards came stamped with the mes-s~ge "do not fold, spindle, or mutilate" from a regime that seemed to"fold, spindle, and mutilate" the users of the system. Critics like Ellul(1964) bemoaned our preoccupation with technique and how it hadhelped divorce technology from human ends.

As computers and communication technologies begin to merge, a cre-ative, informed, and uncompromising human factors approach to com-munication research will struggle to regain control over technology andto subordinate aspects of the system to the goals of individual users.Good interface design tries to turn seemingly impenetrable systems intoflexible communication tools. We must assume that it is possible to devel-op a communication research approach that can do more than simply cri-tique practices or assemble lists of possible effects, but can actively helpreclaim communication technology for the individual-for the exercise ofcreative power, enhanced expression, and unfettered communication.Obviously, this is as much a utopian vision as a research program. I ampainfully aware that the Janus-like nature of technology does not guaran-tee positive outcomes.

But a strength and value of a human factors approach to communica-tion design must be a recognition of its limits. Only some aspects ofcommunication systems can be designed by designers; communicationdesign is at best facilitation, not specification. The pen, the printingpress, and the telephone are good models. They facilitate communica-tion; they don't specify it. Many key aspects of communication environ-ments are not designed by designers; they are designed by users. Users


must be co-designers. Like languages, users finalize the design of com-munication systems [i.e., Saussure's (1959) distinction between langueand parole].

Communication environments are ultimately defined by the unpre-dictable diversity of communication action undertaken by individuals andsocial groups inside a communication environment. The strength of ahuman factors approach stems not from a passive observation or mea-surement of this fact, but from an active engagement with, support of,and amplification of the users' communication actions. The iterative de-sign, evaluation, and redesign of communication environments becomesa natural part of communication theory and research.

ReferencesBaecker, R., & Buxton, W. 0987). Human-computer interaction: A multidisciplinary ap-

proach. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

Benedikt, M. (Ed.). 0992). Cyberspace: First steps. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Biocca, F. 0987). Sampling from the museum of forms: Photography and visual thinking inthe rise of modern statistics. In M. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication yearbook 10 (pp.684-708). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Biocca, F. 0988). The pursuit of sound: Radio, perception, and utopia in the early twenti-eth century. Media, Culture, & Society, 10,61-80.

Biocca, F. 0992a). Communication within virtual reality: Creating a space for research.journal of Communication, 4~4), 5-22.

Biocca, F. 0992b). Virtual reality technology: A tutorial. journal of Communication, 4~4),23-72.

Biocca, F. (1993). Communication technology matrix. Chapel Hill: Center for Research inJournalism and Mass Communication, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Biocca, F., & Delaney, B. (in press). The components of virtual reality technology. In F.Biocca & M. Levy (Eds.), Communication in the age of virtual reality. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Biocca, F., & Levy, M. (Eds.). (in press). Communication in the age of virtual reality. Hills-dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bullinger, H. (1986). Technology trend-A challenge to research and industry. In A. Ger-stenfeld, H. Bullinger, & H. Warnecke (Eds.), Proceedings of the conference on manufac.turing research: organizational and institutional issues. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Card, S., Moran, T. P., & Newell, A. (1983). The psychology of human computer interaction.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

CBEMA. (1991). The information technology industry databook. Washington, DC: Author.

Cherry, C. (1957). On human communication: A review, a survey, and a criticism. Cam-bridge, MA: MIT Press.

Ellul, J. (1964). The technological society. New York: Vintage.

Fish, R., Kraut, R. E., Root, R. W., & Rice, R. E. (1992). Evaluating video as a source of infor-mal communication. In P. Bauersfeld & G. Lynch (Eds.), CHl'92conferenceproceedings.New York: Association for Computing Machinery.

67

Tournai of Communication, Autumn 1993

Gay, G., & Grose-Ngate, M. (1993). Collaborative design in a networked multimedia envi-ronment: Emerging communication patterns. Ithaca, NY: Department of Communica-tion, Cornell University.

Habermas, J. (1981). 11Je theory of communicative action (Vots. 1 & 2). Boston: BeaconPress.

Hancock, P. A. (Ed.). (1987). Humanfactorspsychology. New York: North Holland.

Heeter, C. (1992). Being there: The subjective experience of presence. Presence, 1(2),262-270.

Kay, A. (1984, September). Computer software. Scientific American, 251(3), 52-59.

Kim, S. (1990). Interdisciplinary cooperation. In B. Laurel (Ed.), 11Je art of human-comput-er interface design (pp. 31-44). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Kuhn, T. (1970). 11Je structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.

Laurel, B. (Ed.). (1990). 11Je art of human-computer interface design. Reading, MA: Addi-

son-Wesley.Laurel, B. (1991). Computers as theater. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.

Mandel, M. (1989). Making good time: Scientific management, the Gilbreths, photographyand motion, futurism. Santa Cruz, CA: M. Mandel, California Museum of Photography.

Meyer, K., Applewhite, H., & Biocca, F. (1992). A survey of position trackers. Presence,1(2), 173-200.

Millison, D., & LeGrow, C. 1993. Multimedia "black boxes": Advent of the digital mediahome. In M. De Sonne (Ed.), Multimedia 2000 (pp. 103-120). Washington, DC: NationalAssociation of Broadcasters.

Mumford, L. (1934). Technics and civilization. New York: Harcourt & Brace.

Nelson, D. (1980). Frederick w: Taylor and the rise of scientific management. Madison:University of Wisconsin Press.

Nilan, M. S. (1992). Cognitive space: Using virtual reality for large information resourcemanagement problems. journaJofCommunication, 4.2(4), 115-135.

Rubenstein, R., & Hersh, H. (1984). 11Je humanfactor. Burlington, MA: The Digital Press.

Saussure, F. (1959). Course in general linguistics. New York: Philosophical Library.

Schramm, W. (1988). 11Je story of human communication: Cave to microchip. New York:Harper & Row.

Shneiderman, B. (1992). Designing the user interface: Strategiesforeffective human-com-puter interaction. Reading, MA: Addision-Wesley.

Slavendy, G. (Ed.). (1987). Handbook of human factors. New York: John Wiley.

Vassiliou, Y. (1984). Humanfactors and interactive computer systems. Norwood, NJ: Ablex

Wickens, C. 0984). Engineeringpsychology and human performance. Columbus, OH:Charles E. Merrill.

Winograd, T., & Flores, F. 0987). Understanding computers and cognition. Reading, MA:

Addison-Wesley.Woodson. W. 0981). Human factors design handbook. New York: McGraw Hill.

communication research in the design of communication interfaces and systems

Documents