one thing
- the appropriation of soft/natural/organic aesthetics in big tech (or a "new" big tech?)
- as an evolution from sleek, minimalist, alumin(i)um hardware and software
- as a dizzying, wraparound, cognitively dissonant contrast to the abstract, nebulous, detached, outsourced work of "cloud" computation

another thing
- the politicised aesthetics of interface and information design
- what do we mean when we say clarity and speed and ease of use
- what kinds of tasks are we making easier with neatly packaged buttons and tables
- who gets to sit in front of these interfaces
- what kinds of data is being presented so nicely and what was lost along the way
- how does an interface flatten complexity and nuance
- whence can we trace back our need for efficiency and scale

#theses

RE: https://mstdn.social/@aworkinglibrary/116375225022524182

i came across @aworkinglibrary's comment about tools for war and it got me thinking about this again. i'm also still reading through the guardian article (sorry i got impatient and started typing this prematurely) but am really appreciating the history background and connections drawn so far.

sometimes at work we talk about "the sci-fi movie version" of a tool. does that bring to mind a visual aesthetic? a particular type of interaction? a communication or collaboration setting? an idealisation of the difficult process of translating intention into results, or questions into understanding? are we seeking the omniscience and sense of righteousness and gratification granted to the protagonists in the world of a 90-minute movie?

the tools we often use in real life are banal, annoying, mostly functional, bureaucratic, familiar, abstract, important. astronauts use outlook and the military uses the kanban method. i guess it's interesting to think about the infrastructure that we've built to enable all of the good and evil that we do. technology is not neutral — and perhaps we can take the statement not necessarily as an admonishment, but maybe more as a provocation.