Interface as a Mirror: Reflexivity of the Individual and the Collective

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

In the era of global digitalization, interfaces have become an essential part of social and cultural life, defining the interaction between the individual and the collective. The subject of this article is to analyze the relationship between interface design and socio-ethical aspects of society. The research focuses on how interfaces reflect and shape social norms and ethical values, influencing the processes of self-identification and social integration in the context of global digitalization. Special attention is given to the mechanisms through which interfaces contribute to the formation of personal and collective identity, as well as how they participate in cultivating cultural identities and ensuring accessibility and inclusivity in the digital space. The main goal of the research is to analyze the role of interfaces in the process of forming personal and collective identity, and their impact on the socio-ethical aspects of public life. The research methodology is based on an interdisciplinary approach, combining elements of social philosophy, cultural studies, and design analysis. Qualitative methods, including theoretical literature analysis and case studies, are used to investigate the influence of interfaces on social processes. The study highlights that interfaces facilitate social integration and cultural exchange, influencing socio-cultural identities and norms. Interface design, with its accessibility and inclusiveness, is crucial for social justice and ethical standards in the digital realm. It underscores the importance of ethical considerations in interface development, which significantly affects technology-society interaction and impacts social and cultural dynamics. The research advocates exploring interfaces' social and ethical implications in the digital era, suggesting new academic and practical research directions.

References

  1. Алиев Р. Т. От кимоно до Биг-Мака: анализ интернет-запросов россиян как отражения стереотипов, формирующих образы Другого // Журнал Фронтирных Исследований. 2024. № 1 (9). C. 165–186. doi: 10.46539/jfs.v9i1.577
  2. Гриншкун А. В. Возможности использования технологий дополненной реальности при обучении информатике школьников // Вестник МГПУ. Серия: информатика и информатизация образования. 2014. № 3. C. 87–93.
  3. Латыпова А. Р., Скоморох М. М. Введение в экологию интерфейса // Galactica Media: Journal of Media Studies. 2019. № 4. C. 17–27. doi: 10.24411/2658-7734-2019-10034
  4. Очеретяный К. А. От бихевиориального дизайна к благоговению перед жизнью: политики заботы для цифровой среды // Galactica Media: Journal of Media Studies. 2021. № 2 (3). C. 166–193. doi: 10.46539/gmd.v3i2.145
  5. Barraca J. P., Aguiar R. L. Ontology-driven framework for community networking management // 2008 International Conference on Telecommunications. St. Petersburg: IEEE, 2008. P. 1–7. doi: 10.1109/ICTEL.2008.4652671
  6. Bogert E., Schecter A., Watson R. T. Humans rely more on algorithms than social influence as a task becomes more difficult // Scientific Reports. 2021. № 1 (11). P. 1–9. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-87480-9
  7. Brivio E., Cilento Ibarra F. Self Presentation in Blogs and Social Networks // Annual Review of Cybertherapy and Telemedicine 2009. IOS Press, 2009. P. 113–115. doi: 10.3233/978-1-60750-017-9-113
  8. Bryson S. Virtual reality in scientific visualization // Communications of the ACM. 1996. № 5 (39). P. 62–71. doi: 10.1145/229459.229467
  9. Cinelli M., De Francisci Morales G., Galeazzi A., Quattrociocchi W., Starnini M. The echo chamber effect on social media // Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2021. № 9 (118). P. 1–8. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2023301118
  10. Gardiner M. M., Christie B. Applying cognitive psychology to user-interface design // Applied Ergonomics. 1988. № 2 (19). P. 160–161. doi: 10.1016/0003-6870(88)90043-9
  11. Grunwald A. Designing technology in the age of digitalization: needs for technology assessment and ethics // Multidisciplinary Aspects of Production Engineering. 2019. № 1 (2). P. 612–623. doi: 10.2478/mape-2019-0060
  12. Henderson J., Dicken P., Hess M., Coe N., Yeung H. W.-Ch. Global production networks and the analysis of economic development // Review of International Political Economy. 2002. № 3 (9). P. 436–464. doi: 10.1080/09692290210150842
  13. Huang M.-H., Rust R. T. Artificial Intelligence in Service // Journal of Service Research. 2018. № 2 (21). P. 155–172. doi: 10.1177/1094670517752459
  14. Jauk W. Interfaces a Musical Situation // Musicological Annual. 2007. № 1 (43). P. 43–51. doi: 10.4312/mz.43.1.43-51
  15. Jensen Schau H., Gilly M. C. We Are What We Post? Self-Presentation in Personal Web Space // Journal of Consumer Research. 2003. № 3 (30). P. 385–404. doi: 10.1086/378616
  16. Jin L., Robey D. Bridging social and technical interfaces in organizations: An interpretive analysis of time-space distanciation // Information and Organization. 2008. № 3 (18). P. 177–204. doi: 10.1016/j.infoandorg.2007.12.001
  17. Jin S.-A. A. The virtual malleable self and the virtual identity discrepancy model: Investigative frameworks for virtual possible selves and others in avatar-based identity construction and social interaction // Computers in Human Behavior. 2012. № 6 (28). P. 2160–2168. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.022
  18. Kirsh D. Do Architects and Designers Think about Interactivity Differently? // ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction. 2019. № 2 (26). P. 1–43. doi: 10.1145/3301425
  19. Koliada I. Self-Identification of a Person in the Conditions Techno-Informational Reality // Dnipro Academy of Continuing Education Herald. Series: Philosophy, Pedagogy. 2022. № 2 (1). P. 23–27. doi: 10.54891/2786-7005-2022-1-4
  20. Li S. Z., Jain A. User Interfaces // Encyclopedia of Biometrics. Boston, MA: Springer US, 2009. P. 1363–1363. doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-73003-5_430
  21. Liu J., Wong C. K., Hui K. K. An adaptive user interface based on personalized learning // IEEE Intelligent Systems. 2003. № 2 (18). P. 52–57. doi: 10.1109/MIS.2003.1193657
  22. Maguire M. Socio-technical systems and interaction design 21st century relevance // Applied Ergonomics. 2014. № 2 (45). P. 162–170. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2013.05.011
  23. Marathe S., Sundar S. S. What drives customization?: control or identity? // Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Vancouver BC Canada: ACM, 2011. P. 781–790. doi: 10.1145/1978942.1979056
  24. Mujber T. S., Szecsi T., Hashmi M. S. J. Virtual reality applications in manufacturing process simulation // Journal of Materials Processing Technology. 2004. Vol. 155–156. P. 1834–1838. doi: 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2004.04.401
  25. Nagulendra S., Vassileva J. Understanding and controlling the filter bubble through interactive visualization: a user study // Proceedings of the 25th ACM conference on Hypertext and social media. Santiago Chile: ACM, 2014. P. 107–115. doi: 10.1145/2631775.2631811
  26. Peachey A., Childs M. Virtual Worlds and Identity // Reinventing Ourselves: Contemporary Concepts of Identity in Virtual Worlds. London: Springer London, 2011. P. 1–12. doi: 10.1007/978-0-85729-361-9_1
  27. Peters D., Calvo R. A., Ryan R. M. Designing for Motivation, Engagement and Wellbeing in Digital Experience // Frontiers in Psychology. 2018. Vol. 9. P. 1–15. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00797
  28. Rizzolatti G., Sinigaglia C. The mirror mechanism: a basic principle of brain function // Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 2016. № 12. P. 757–765. doi: 10.1038/nrn.2016.135
  29. Roth D., Bloch C., Schmitt J., Frischlich L., Latoschik M. E., Bente G. Perceived Authenticity, Empathy, and Pro-social Intentions evoked through Avatar-mediated Self-disclosures // Proceedings of Mensch und Computer 2019. Hamburg Germany: ACM, 2019. P. 21–30. doi: 10.1145/3340764.3340797
  30. Sachdev V. Motivations for Social Computing // IT Professional. 2011. № 4 (13). P. 18–23. doi: 10.1109/MITP.2011.65
  31. Salehan M., Kim D. J., Lee J.-N. Are there any relationships between technology and cultural values? A country-level trend study of the association between information communication technology and cultural values // Information & Management. 2018. № 6 (55). P. 725–745. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2018.03.003
  32. Samsonovich A. V. Socially emotional brain-inspired cognitive architecture framework for artificial intelligence // Cognitive Systems Research. 2020. Vol. 60. P. 57–76. doi: 10.1016/j.cogsys.2019.12.002
  33. Simsek Z., Heavey C., Fox B. C. Interfaces of Strategic Leaders: A Conceptual Framework, Review, and Research Agenda // Journal of Management. 2018. № 1 (44). P. 280–324. doi: 10.1177/0149206317739108
  34. Soh H., Sanner S., White M., Jamieson G. Deep Sequential Recommendation for Personalized Adaptive User Interfaces // Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. Limassol Cyprus: ACM, 2017. P. 589–593. doi: 10.1145/3025171.3025207
  35. Sommerer C., Mignonneau L., King D. Interface Cultures: Artistic Aspects of Interaction. Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript Verlag, 2008. doi: 10.14361/9783839408841
  36. Stanfill M. The interface as discourse: The production of norms through web design // New Media & Society. 2015. № 7 (17). P. 1059–1074. doi: 10.1177/1461444814520873
  37. Steriadis C. E., Constantinou P. Designing human-computer interfaces for quadriplegic people // Interactions. 2003. № 3 (10). P. 9–10. doi: 10.1145/769759.769766
  38. Troiano L., Birtolo C. Genetic algorithms supporting generative design of user interfaces: Examples // Information Sciences. 2014. Vol. 259. P. 433–451. doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2012.01.006
  39. Udsen L. E., Jørgensen A. H. The aesthetic turn: unravelling recent aesthetic approaches to human-computer interaction // Digital Creativity. 2005. № 4 (16). P. 205–216. doi: 10.1080/14626260500476564
  40. Van De Poel I., Van Gorp A. C. The Need for Ethical Reflection in Engineering Design: The Relevance of Type of Design and Design Hierarchy // Science, Technology, & Human Values. 2006. № 3 (31). P. 333–360. doi: 10.1177/0162243905285846
  41. Yao-Jen Ch., Hung-Huan L., Tsen-Yung W. Mobile social networks as quality of life technology for people with severe mental illness // IEEE Wireless Communications. 2009. № 3 (16). P. 34–40. doi: 10.1109/MWC.2009.510946

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Согласие на обработку персональных данных

 

Используя сайт https://journals.rcsi.science, я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных») даю согласие на обработку персональных данных на этом сайте (текст Согласия) и на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика» (текст Согласия).