1. ThisworkislicensedunderaCreativeCommonsAttribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike4.0InternationalLicense.

2. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

ScenesofWritingBURDICK,AnneArtCenterCollegeofDesignandUniversityofTechnologySydneyanne@anneburdick.comdoi:10.21606/dma.2017.598

Thispaperlooksathowspeculativefictioncanprovideadesignspacetoexploretheeffectsof technologies for critical interpretation.UsingTrina:ADesignFiction asacasestudy,thepaperbuildsuponLucySuchman’sstudyintohowtechnologyteamsdesign“thehuman” in tandemwiththecomputer,askingcantherebeamodelof“thehuman”suitedtotechnologiesforsubjectivejudgment?LookingcloselyatthecharactersinTrina,weseeindividualswhosecapacities,specificities,socialhistories,and individual biographies inform the degree of agency that each has with thewritingtechnologiesthatdefinetheirworkandworth.Accountsofwritersandtheirinscription technologies found in recent literature frommedia and literary studiesfurtherdemonstratethecontingentnatureoftextualcomposition.Ratherthanlookfor a generalized human-computer fit, the paper argues for the design of story-worlds in which specific humans, non-humans, and networks are designed in oneand the same gesture, revealing the productive misalignments and contestedboundariesthatdefinetheirinteractions.

designfiction;human-computerinteraction;writingtechnologies;DigitalHumanities

1 IntroductionWhenIsetouttocreateadesignfictioninordertoimaginefuturetechnologiesforcriticalinterpretation,mychoiceofgenrewasdrivenbytheneedtodesignthingsthatdon’tyetexistandtheactivitiesandworldsthesenewthingsmightmakepossible.Inparticular,Iwasinterestedinwhathappenswhendigitaltoolsforreadingandwritingareconceivedtosupportliteraryinterpretationinformedbycriticaltheory.Ihadalreadybeenworkingonthatquestionforyearsincollaborationwithliterarycriticsandlinguiststhroughappliedprojectssuchastheelectronicbookreview.comandtheAustrianAcademyCorpus.ButIwantedtobemoreambitiousthancurrentbudgetsandtechnologieswouldallow.Iwasinterestedinthen-dimensionalityofinterpretation(McGann,2001),thedesignofvisualepistemologies(Drucker,2014),andthesubjectivitiesandambiguitiescentraltofeministandliterarytheories.Iwantedtoprovokenewthinkingandquestionsaboutwhatmightbeifthesetheorieswerethestartingpointforthedesign

ofinterpretativetoolsfortheDigitalHumanities.Iwantedtoseeifonecoulddesignsoftwareforreadingandwritingthatembodiedandenabledcriticalthinking.

ThusIcreatedTrina,ADesignFiction,astorytoldthroughsixtyimagesplusnarrationthatcouldberealizedasagraphicnovelorperformedasa3-partPechaKucha(1part=20slides,20secondseach),co-writtenwithauthorJanetSarbanes.Thedesignworkwentbeyondbuildinganewdigitaltool;Ihadtodevelopanentirestoryworld,thescenesofreadingandwritingreferredtointhispaper’stitle.Creatinganarrative-baseddesignfiction—anactualstorywithwordsandpicturesasopposedtotheobjectsorinstallations—necessitatedthatIdesignsituatedactionsintoto:inaspecificplaceandtimewithspecifichumansandspecificthingsalongwithanetworkofspecificforces,allofwhichpushedandpulledontheactionasitunfoldedthroughoutthestory.Thisrequiredcreatinganassemblageofhumansandnonhumansinaniterative,mutually-definingcycle.Fromaspeculativedesignperspective,itturnedouttobetheborderlands—theinteractionsandintra-actionsamongstthisassemblage—thatgavethestoryitsshape.

Figure1.Ascreen/panelfromTrina:ADesignFiction.Eachscreen/panelcapturesasinglemomentfromtwoperspectives:Trina’sfirst-personviewontopandathird-personpanoramaonthebottomwithTrinaatthecenter.Shownhere:Trinaselectingthetextofthe“DoctrinaLetter”whoseelusivemeaningandprovenancedrivethestory.

TheTrinaproject—particularlytheresearchthatinformedmydesigndecisions—alsoallowedmetoinvestigatethefitoftechnologydevelopmentbestpractices,suchasuser-centereddesign,forthecreationofsoftwareforcriticalinterpretation.Itforcedthequestion:cantheactofwritingbeframedasakindofuse?InformedbyLucySuchman’sresearchintohowdesigninghuman-computerinteractionsinvolvesconfiguringthe“human”intandemwiththe“computer,”theprojectinvestigateswhatmodelof“thehuman”isbestsuitedtothedesignoftechnologiesforsubjectivejudgment.(Suchman,2006)ThustheTrinaprojectbecameanexperimentinprototypingacomplicated,messy,andsituatedsubjectintandemwithherdigitalcounterpart.Informedbytheoriesofdistributedagency,thestorydemonstrateshowsoftwaredesigncanonlyaccountforso

much.Asweshallsee,textualcompositioniscontingentuponcomplexinteractionsamongstwritingtechnologies,language,thebody,andsocialandpoliticalforces.

2 Messysubjects:Trina,Ida,andDoctrinaTrinaenvisionsthemixedrealityworldofaliteraryscholarwhoworksaloneinanRVinthedesert,sometimeinthefuture.ThroughTrina’seyesweseethesoftware-mediateddailyrealitywithinwhichshemustinterpretacryptic,typewrittendocument(theDoctrinaLetter)aspartofatextanalysisH.I.T.(humanintelligencetask)shetakesontomakeendsmeet.Butitisn’tuntilshegetsintothegenderedhistoryofthetypewriterandassumesthehandsofthetypistthatsheisabletodecipherthedocument’shiddenmeaning.AndalthoughTrinaherselfworkswithdevicesimplantedinhereyesandherhands,itisherembodiedrelationshipwithwritingthatrendersheracyborg.

Trina’simplantsallowhertointeractwithavirtualenvironment.Herdigitaleyesandfingersarecommittedtoheremployer,HumanitasInc.,aserviceinwhichanalystsdecipherdocumentsmainlyformilitaryandgovernmentintelligenceintheWaronTerror.InthebackstoryforTrina,HumanitasInc.isconceivedasanemploymentagencyforfreelancedigitalhumanitiesscholarswhoarerecruitedfortheirskillsincomputationaltextanalysis.Asalaborpool,theyarecheapandabundant,duetothedemiseofHumanitiesdepartmentsinuniversitiesacrossthewesternworld.OneofthebenefitsofworkingforHumanitasInc.isthatTrinagetsaccesstomanyotherareasoftheinformationnetwork,accesssheusedtogetthroughherUniversity.

Trinaworkswithafewdifferentkindsof“speculativesoftware”—whatMatthewFullercalls“softwarewhoseworkispartlytoreflexivelyinvestigateitselfassoftware.Softwareassciencefiction,asmutantepistemology.”(Fuller,2006,p.30)Forexample,TrinadoesherworkforHumanitasInc.withinAnalyssist,anenterprisesoftwareplatform.Analyssisthasavarietyofplug-ins,toolswithwhichtoperformvariouscomputationaltextualforensicstodeterminetheprovenanceofdigitaldocuments.Analyssistisaproprietary,utilitarianenvironmentofcategories,forms,andfieldsthatishostiletoambiguity.AsTrinasaysinthestory:withAnalyssist,“emptyboxesarebetterthaneducatedguesses.”(Figure2.)

Figure2.DetailfromTrina:ADesignFictionshowingthetelescopingformfieldsofAnalyssistasseenthroughTrina’seyes.

Duringherfreetime,TrinawandersTheCommons,anopenaccess3-dimensionallandscapeofdocumentsdistributedacrossahorizontalplane—likethelibrary,itisascholar’splayground.Thespatialdistributionofthedocumentsisbaseduponamappingofmeaningfulrelationshipsbetween

thevisibletextsandthereadingsubject.Multipleinterpretationsco-existsimultaneously;areadercanfollowanunendingpathofassociations.(Figure3.)ItisinTheCommonsthatTrinaworkswithanetworkofhobbyistsandscholarstogeneratepotentialreadingsoftheDoctrinaLetter.

Figure3.DetailfromTrina:ADesignFiction.Annotations,responses,andinterpretationsofadocumentinTheCommonsasseenthroughTrina’seyes.

TheassignmentattheheartofthestoryisdifferentfromthosethatTrinausuallygets:theDoctrinaLetterisahistoricalprintartifact,ratherthanacontemporarydigitalcommunication.Itisacollector’sitemthoughttobewrittenonanearlycode-generatingtypewriter.(Figure1.)Usingherdigitaltools,Trinaseparatesoutthedocument’sthreelayersandthroughsomedetectiveworkdeterminesthatthepagewascomposedinoneoftwoplacesandtimes.Itmayhavebeencreatedin1874byasecretarynamedIdaWaynewhoworkedfortherifleandtypewritermanufacturer,E.Remington&Sons.Oritmayhavebeentypedinthe1920sbyaconcretepoetnamedDoctrinaFortiorwhomaybeIdaWayne’sbastardchild.Theprovenanceisunclearandthemeaningofthedocumentisopentonumerous,conflicting,interpretations.TrinafollowsIdaandDoctrina’sstorywithinastory.Thefictionalcharactersareinterwovenintotherealhistoryofthetypewriter.

Inthestory,IdaWayneisasinglewomanwhointhelate1800swasthesecretaryofPhiloRemington,theninchargeofthefirearmsdivisionofE.Remington&Sons,inupstateNewYork.IdamaybepregnantwiththechildofEliphalet,Philo’sbookishyoungerbrotherwhoisinchargeofthemechanicaltypewritingmachine,whichisintheearlyprototypingphaseandwillgoontobecometheRemingtonStandardTypeWriter.ChristopherSholeshasjustintroducedwhatwouldbecometheQWERTYkeyboardtothemachinistsatRemington&Sons.

LikeSholes’sreallifedaughter,andlaterMarkTwain’s,Idaistheyoungwomanwhoworksthetypewritingmachineforthemen.SheisoneofthefirstTypeWritersassuchwomenwerecalled.ButIdahasideasofherownandseesinthetypewriterachancetoinscribethoughtsintopeople’smindsastheypressthekeys.Idabelievesintheaphorism“ThePenisMightierthantheSword,”andseesthekeyboardasachancetospreadherpacifistideals.TrinaspeculatesthatIdaconvincedEliphalettocreateaprototypetypewriterwiththelettersfromtheLatinversionofthisaphorismasthetoprowofkeys(DOCTRINAFORTIORARMIS=DCTRNFMSOIA).Ifso,andifIdausedtheprototypetotypetheartifact,thequestionforTrinais:whatdothelayeredtextsmean?WasIdasimplypracticingwiththekeys?Orwasshecomposingsomekindofpoetryorsecretmessage?AndwhydoeswhatappearstobegibberishsocloselyresembletypingexercisesthatwerepublishedlaterintheTypeWritingManualoftheChristianWomen’sSchool,whereIdawasnextemployed?

Ida’sclassandgendergaveheralimitedabilitytoinfluencethedesignofanewwritingtechnology.Trinaponders:sinceIda’sattempttoalterthemachineitselffailed,didsheinsteadtrytoalteritsuse?Didshecomposetypingmanualstoaffectthemindsoftheworkingclasswomenwhomshetaughtfortheremainderofherlife?

WeknowlessaboutDoctrinaFortior,whomayalsobetheauthorofthedocument,somethirtyyearslater.Inthestory,theonlythingweknowaboutDoctrinaisthatshewasaconcretepoetwholivedontheLeftBankandherpoetrydisappearedlongago.InTheAutobiographyofAliceB.Toklas,GertrudeStein(intheTrinastory)referstoherashavingdone“funnythingswithtype.Everyonethoughtthisiswhatwritingshouldlooklikeinthemachineage.”IfDoctrinaistheauthoroftheartifact,itcouldbethatshepossessedhermother’sprototypetypewriterandusedittocreateherpoetry.Thetextcouldthenbereadasaslycommentaryontheembodiedpracticeoflearninghowtotype,aModernistexplorationoflanguage.AnalternativereadingproposesthatthepieceisaliteraryprankthatDoctrinacreatedtocommentuponhermother’spredicament—“x-ing”outthesecretary,thetycoon,andthetypewritingmanualonthesamepage.

Asthestoryproceeds,Trinashiftsbetweensoftwareenvironments,forcedtomakedifficultchoicesthataffectherabilitytokeepherjobandheraccesstoTheCommons.Sheisbound,throughhereyesandfingers,toheremployer,muchlikeIdabeforeher.ThusTrina’sfinalactofdefianceistoreprogramherfingerstoIda’skeyboard,forcingherselftoworkonlywiththelettersDCTRNFMSOIAasshecommunicateswithoneofHumanitasInc.’sAIagents.RatherthancontinuetointerprettextsinsupportoftheWaronTerror,TrinadecouplesfromHumanitasInc.andintheprocessexilesherselffromTheCommons.TrinaandIdaeachmakelife-changingchoicesbyactivelyresistingtheefficiency-maximizingdesignsoftheirwritingtechnologies.

3 WritersandusersInPaulAuster’snovel,Ghosts,partofTheNewYorkTrilogy,BlueishiredbyWhitetospyonBlack.BluesurveilsBlackusingold-fashionedspytechniques,tailinghimthroughthecityfromtimetotimebutmostlywatchinghimthroughbinocularsfromanapartmentacrossthestreet.Forhoursonend—whichturnintodaysandthenmonths—BluewatchesasBlacksitsatadeskwriting.BlackcouldbecomposingahitlistorasonnetoramemotoHumanResourcesbutthroughdirectobservation,Bluegets“nothing.”Bluestruggleswithwhattowriteinhisweeklyreports.ForBlue,watchingsomeonewriteisnotonlyinscrutable,it’sboring.

Figure4.DetailsfromTrina:ADesignFiction.PanoramasshowTrinawritinginherfavoritespots:sittingoutsideherRVinthemorning(top);sittingonherdaybedinsidetheRV(middle);andinherreclineroutsidetheRVatdusk(bottom).

Butmanyarefascinatedbyhowwriterswrite,perhapsduetothisinscrutability,andovertheyearstherehavebeeninnumerableessays,columns,andinterviewsinwhichfamousauthorstalkabouthowtheycomposetheirtexts.Forthedesignerofwritingtechnologies,thesestoriesarerichfirst-personaccountsbuttheyareasvariedastheauthorsthemselves.MediaarcheologistMatthewKirschenbaumbringsamediatheoreticalperspectivetoTrackChanges,ALiteraryHistoryofWordProcessing,(Kirschenbaum,2016)astudylaunchedbyhiscuriosityaboutthefirstliteraryworkwrittenwithawordprocessor.Kirschenbaumcompilesstoriesgatheredthroughpublishedaccountsandinterviewsheconductedhimself.Throughout,thewordprocessorisunderstoodaspartofamedialprocess,oneofmanydifferentwritingtechnologiesthatareconfiguredbywritersaspartoftheirownindividualworkingprocesses.Kirschenbaumseekstounderstandtherelationshipbetweenthetechnologiesandthewritinginanattempttogetatthematerialityofwordprocessingandtheimpactofthewritingtechnologyonthewritingitself.“Thereality,ofcourse,isthateverywriter’sindividualhabitsandpracticesaredeeplypersonalandidiosyncratic,anditisdifficult,ifnotimpossible,toextractpatternsinsupportofgeneralizableconclusions—beyondtheintenseintimacyandcommitmentthattheactofwritinginvariablydemands.”(p.22)Nonetheless,Kirschenbaumconcludesthatwhilewritingtechnologiesdonotnecessarilyalterthecontentofwriting,wordprocessingsoftwareallowsthewritertogainasenseofthewholemanuscriptthatismorefluidthanthatofworkscomposedonpaper.

Writingliterarytheoryandliteraryfictionarespecializedpracticesladenwithinstitutional,cultural,andsocialmeaningsandexpectations.Whileinliteratesocietiesmostpeoplewriteonadailybasis,alltextualproductionisnotcreatedequal.Inherstudyofjobprinting,LisaGitelmanmakesthedistinctionbetweenutilitarianformsofwritingthatstructuretransactionsandliteraryformsthathavepublishers,authors,andreaders.(Gitleman,2014)Traintickets,taxforms,andletterheadsstandincontrasttotheboundsheetsofpaperthatbecomenovelsorworksofnon-fiction.Theformeriswritingin/asusewhilethelatteriswritingassubjectivethought.

InhisreviewofMicrosoftWordcirca2000,(Fuller,2003)MatthewFullerclaimsthat“theidealofawordprocessoristhatitcreatesanenunciativeframeworkthatremainsthesamewhetherwhatisbeingwrittenisaloveletterorataxreturn.”(p.146)Andyet,hepointsout,thenormsofwritingembodiedinMicrosoftWordaregearedtowardthelatter.Fullerusestheoverlyelaboratedinterfacetodeconstructthemodeloftextualmanagementattheheartoftheprogram,demonstratinghowitstemplatessupportofficeworkbutresistliterarycomposition.Theheavily-loadedtoolbarwithitsdiscretetasksrepresentstheprogrammingideology(object-oriented)andtheorganizationofthedeveloperworkforceitenables.Withinthisdivisionoflabor,Fullerassertsthattheuserisbutanotherobject(ratherthansubject)whomightneedtospellcheckbutwhodoesn’tneedtoproduce,say,“combinatorialpoetry.”(p.144)Andyetmany,ifnotmost,authorsofliteraryfictionuseMicrosoftWordasadefaultwritingenvironment.

Still,authorsremainwhoprefertheheavyphysicalityofthetypewriterovertheluminousfluidityofwordprocessing—KirschenbaumcitesCormacMcCarthy,JoyceCarolOates,DonDeLillo,andPaulAuster,amongothers.Austerbeginsbywritingwithpenandpaperandthenre-typestheentiremanuscript.Austersays“Youfeelthatthewordsarecomingoutofyourbodyandthenyoudigthewordsintothepage.…Typingallowsmetoexperiencethebookinanewway,toplungeintotheflowofthenarrativeandfeelhowitfunctionsasawhole.Icallit‘readingwithmyfingers,’anditsamazinghowmanyerrorsyourfingerswillfindthatyoureyesnevernoticed.”(Kirschenbaum,p.21)

Sometimesthisself-consciousrelationshipwiththematerialityofthemachinemakesitsmarkonthewritingitself.InReadingWritingInterfaces,(Emerson,2014),LoriEmersonlooksathowtheconcretepoetsofthe1960stomid-1970s“soughttocreateconcretepoetryasawaytoexperimentwiththelimitsandthepossibilitiesofthetypewriter,”drawingattentiontothe“typewriter-as-interface.”(p.xix)Emersonclaimsthatthepoems“expressandenactapoeticsoftheremarkablyvariedmaterialspecificitiesofthetypewriterasaparticularkindofmechanicalwritinginterfacethatnecessarilyinflectsbothhowandwhatonewrites.”(p.xix)Thiskindofwriterlyexperimentationis

whatKateHayles(Hayles,2002)mightcallatechnotext.“Whenaliteraryworkinterrogatestheinscriptiontechnologythatproducesit,itmobilizesreflexiveloopsbetweenitsimaginativeworldandthematerialapparatusembodyingthatcreationasaphysicalpresence.”(p.25)

“Thebestwritershavealwaysunderstoodthattowriteistobothgrapplewith,andtosomeextent,allegorizetheveryregimeoftechnologicalmediationwithoutwhichwritingwouldn’texistinthefirstplace,”TomMcCarthyisquotedassayinginTrackChanges.Kirschenbaumalsoconjurestheideaoftheinterface:“ThetechnologicalregimeMcCarthyisspeakingofhereiswriting’sinterface,bywhichImeannotonlywhatisliterallydepictedonscreen(menus,icons,andwindows)butalsoaninterfaceinthefullersenseofacomplete,embodiedrelationshipbetweenawriterandhisorherwritingmaterials.”

Increasinglyweseewriterswhoalsocodetheirownsoftwaretoconducttheirresearchorcomposetheirtexts,particularlyintherealmoftheDigitalHumanities.Since1984,authorJohnMcPheehasbeenworkingwithcustomsoftwarethatafriendwrotebaseduponhispaper-basedprocessofcutting,pasting,typing,andretyping.Hehastwoprograms,onethatfragmentshistextintodiscreteunitsandanotherthatcombinesthemintoasingleorderlyfile.In“Structure,”hewritesabouthowthesoftwareemulatesthestructuresofhisownthought.Hisarebespoketoolscreatedinhisownimage.Kirschenbaumasserts,“toknowthesoftwareistoknowsomethingofthemindofthewriter,howeverobliquely.”(p.13)

ForReadingProject,ACollaborativeAnalysisofWilliamPoundstone’sProjectforTachistoscope,(2015)JeremyDouglasscreated“purpose-builttools”toenacthisinterpretationofPoundstone’sscreen-basedinteractivework.Togetherwithco-authorsJessicaPressmanandMarkMarino,Douglassobserved:“Theworkteachesusthatweneedtoreadourreadingmachinesinordertounderstandhowtheyinformourperception,comprehension,andresultinginterpretations.”(p.135)Indeed,intheconclusiontoReadingProject,theco-authorsdiscusshowthevarietyofemergingmethodsandmediaoftheircollaborationledthemtoask:“Ifweweretoimagineanonlineworkingspacethatwouldsupportandpromotecollaborativemultimodalanalysisofborn-digitalobjects,whatwoulditlooklike?”(p.142)ThequestionledtocreationofatoolcalledACLSWorkbench.MatthewFullerwouldcallsuchaprojectsocialsoftware—“softwarebuiltbyandforthoseofuslockedoutofthenarrowlyengineeredsubjectivityofmainstreamsoftware.”(p.24)

InReadingMachines,TowardanAlgorithmicCriticism,the“algorithmicreading”ofStephenRamsay’stitleproposes“thatwecreatetools—practical,instrumental,verifiablemechanisms—thatenablecriticalengagement,interpretation,conversation,andcontemplation.”(p.x)CentraltohisargumentisJeromeMcGannandLisaSamuels’snotionof“deformance”inwhichareadermanipulatesatext,forexamplebyreadingitbackwards,inordertoseeitanewandgeneratenewinterpretations.Ramsayadvocatesfordigitaltoolsthat“…channeltheheightenedobjectivitymadepossiblebythemachineintothecultivationofthoseheightenedsubjectivitiesnecessaryforcriticalwork.”(p.x)Bycriticalwork,hemeanstheclosereadingofliteraryinterpretation.Howmightadigitaltool“heightensubjectivity”andwouldthatbeconsideredakindof“use”?

4 CouplingsandmisalignmentAswehaveseen,thenarrowsliceoftextualproductionknownasliteraryinterpretationandliteraryfictioncouldbeseenasbeingsoreflexive,intimate,andmultivariateastoresistanykindofgeneralizationintousesandusers.Writingisfrequentlyunderstoodbywritersthemselvesasanextensionoftheirbodies,theirminds,andtheiridentities.Inthatsense,writersarealwaysalreadycyborgs,theirsubjectivitydistributedacrossanetworkofcircuitsandinstrumentsandsubstratesandinstitutionsandindustries.

Thisisthechallengeforthesoftwaredesigner,eventhespeculativesoftwaredesignerlikemyself,whoisnottheintendeduserofthetool.IamBlue,staringblanklyatBlack.Icannotknowwhatthewriteristhinking.Theactofcriticalinterpretationisidiosyncraticandopaque.How,then,might

thoseofusontheoutsideconceiveofthecomplicatedinteractionsbetweenwriters,theirtechnologies,andtheirtexts,letalonedesignsoftwarethatistheperfectfit?Andevenifwecould,whoistosaythatthewriter-subjectwouldn’tdefyorreworkthetooltotheirownliking?AsKirschenbaum,Emerson,Ramsayandothershaveshown—andaswehaveseenwithTrina,Ida,andDoctrina—writersdesign,adopt,adapt,hack,andmis-usetechnologiesinpracticeinmyriadways.

“Thereisnosolutiontotheproblemofdistancebetweenprofessionaldesignandtechnologies-in-use,onlydifferentstrategiesforaddressingit,”writesLucySuchmaninHuman-MachineReconfigurations:PlansandSituatedActions(2006,p.204).Regardlessofwhethersheisconfigured(Woolgar),scripted(Akrich),orreconfigured(Suchman),theuserisaconstructthatisbuiltwithandintotechnologyanditsdevelopmentinmyriadways.Softwaredesignersandresearchersworkwithrealpeopleastestsubjects,marketingdata,ethnographicrawmaterial,andco-participants.Theyalsodevelopfictitiouspersonasandscenariosthathelpstructureanddelimitfeaturesandfunctionality.Regardlessofthestrategy,thepurposeistoinsurethatnewtechnologieswillbefriction-freeinfuturecontextsofuse.Suchmanandothersalsonotethattheuserfigureplaysitsownrolewithinanorganizationasdifferentteams—marketingorengineering,say—useittobuildamentalmodelofthetechnologyunderdevelopmentandtheirownrelationshipsinsideandoutsidetheorganization.

AndyetSuchmancautionsagainstoversimplificationandinstrumentality.TowardtheendofHuman-MachineReconfigurations,sheissuesachallengetodesignersandotherswhosejobitistodotheboundaryworkthatjoinsandseparateshumansandnonhumans:

Thetaskforcriticalpracticeistoresistrestagingofstoriesaboutautonomoushumanactorsanddiscretetechnicalobjectsinfavorofanorientationtocapacitiesforactioncomprisedofspecificconfigurationsofpersonsandthings.Toseetheinterfacethiswayrequiresashiftinourunitofanalysis,bothtemporallyandspatially.Temporally,understandingagivenarrangementofhumansandartifactsrequireslocatingthatconfigurationwithinsocialhistoriesandindividualbiographiesforbothpersonsandthings.Anditrequireslocatingitaswellwithinanalwaysmoreextendednetworkofrelations,arbitrarily—howeverpurposefully—cutthroughpractical,analytical,and/orpoliticalactsofboundarymaking.(p.284)

Totellagoodstory,designfictionnarrativesrequire“capacitiesforaction,”“specificities,”“socialhistories,”and“individualbiographies.”Composingadesignfictionrequirestheconcurrentdesignoftheuserandthetechnologyastwopartsofamutually-definingwhole,amplifyingwhathappensinanyuser-centeredtechnologydevelopmentprocess:changesinoneresultinchangesintheother.Iwillcallthisactivitydesigninga“coupling.”Thehuman-machinecouplingdoesnotexistinisolation,rathereachsideisitselfconnectedwithmyriadotherforcesandconcerns.

AccordingtoWikipedia,“Theprimarypurposeofcouplingsistojointwopiecesofrotatingequipmentwhilepermittingsomedegreeofmisalignmentorendmovementorboth.”(Coupling.October8,2017)Story-worlddesignprovidesanopportunitytoplayaroundwiththe“misalignmentorendmovement”ofthehuman-technologyconfiguration.Itisadesignspacewithinwhichhumans,non-humans,andnetworksarebynecessitydesignedinoneandthesamegesture.WhileBruceSterlinghasfamouslyplaced“diegeticprototypes”—storypropswhosepresenceadvancesanarrativeinsomeway—atthecenterofdesignfiction,Trinapushesfurther.(Sterling,2017)TrinaaimedtocreatewhatSterlingwouldcalla“Gesamtkunstwerk,theDesignFictionastotal-work-of-art”:prototypesandpeopleandactiondesignedasawhole.(p.22)

5 ConclusionThispaperhasdetailedhowspeculativefictioncomplicatedmyattempttodesigndigitaltoolsforreadingandwriting.Designinganentirestory-worldshiftedmyattentiontowheretheactionwas:intheborderlandsbetweentechnologyprototypes,histories,biographies,geographies,andsocialand

politicalforces.Theprocessofdesigning“humans”intandemwithtechnologies—particularlywhenthosehumansarecomplexindividualsengagedinahighlysubjectiveactivitysuchascriticalinterpretation—revealedtheproductivemovementandmisalignmentcharacteristicofsuchcouplings.

Idasubvertedthesocialpracticesoftypewriting,onefemaletypistatatime.Doctrinainterrogatedthematerialityofthewritingmachine,misusingthetechnologytoproducetextsonherowntermsinthecontextofliterarypractice.AndTrinaremappedthealphabetintoherbodysothatshecouldproducetextsthatwereillegibletothecorporatecontrolsystemshewaspluggedinto,butthatweremeaningfultoher.Bydesign,Trina’sscenesofwritingarefraughtwithconflictandhardchoices,onlysomeofwhichcouldbeaddressedbythedesignofsoftware.

Acknowledgements:ThisworkwassupportedinpartbyMediaDesignPracticesatArtCenterCollegeofDesignandinvolved,overtheyears,someoutstandingstudentinterns:BrooklynBrown,LeeCody,MargoDunlap,MatthewManos,ChristineMeinders,ZoePadgett,BoraShin,ShixieShiTrofimov,JayneVidheecharoen,GodivaReisenbacher,StephanieCedeño,NicciYin.Trina:ADesignFictioncredits:StorybyAnneBurdickandJanetSarbanes;DesignbyAnneBurdick;SoundbyCaseyAnderson;VideoProductionbyEliRuoyongHong.

6 ReferencesAkrich,M.(1992).TheDe-ScriptionofTechnicalObjects,ShapingTechnology/BuildingSociety:Studiesin

SociotechnicalChange.Cambridge,Mass:TheMITPress.Auster,P.(1987).TheNewYorkTrilogy:FaberModernClassics(Main-FaberModernClassicsedition).London:

Faber&FaberLtd.Burdick,A.(2015).Meta!Meta!Meta!ASpeculativeDesignBrieffortheDigitalHumanities,VisibleLanguage

49.3,12–33.Cincinnatti:UniversityofCincinnati.Burdick,A.,Drucker,J.,Lunenfeld,P.,Presner,T.,&Schnapp,J.T.(2012).Digital_Humanities.Cambridge,MA:

MITPress.Drucker,J.(2014).Graphesis:VisualFormsofKnowledgeProduction.Cambridge,Massachusetts:Harvard

UniversityPress.Dunne,A.,&Raby,F.(2013).SpeculativeEverything:Design,Fiction,andSocialDreaming(1stedition).

Cambridge,Massachusetts ;London:TheMITPress.Emerson,L.(2014).ReadingWritingInterfaces:FromtheDigitaltotheBookbound.Minneapolis:UnivOf

MinnesotaPress.Fuller,M.(2003).BehindtheBlip:EssaysontheCultureofSoftware.Brooklyn,NY,USA:Autonomedia.Fuller,M.(2008).SoftwareStudies:ALexicon.Cambridge,Mass:TheMITPress.Gitelman,L.(2014).PaperKnowledge.Durham:DukeUniversityPress.Hayles,N.K.,&Burdick,A.(2002).WritingMachines(1edition).Cambridge,Mass:TheMITPress.Kirschenbaum,M.G.(2016).TrackChanges:ALiteraryHistoryofWordProcessing.Cambridge,Massachusetts:

BelknapPress:AnImprintofHarvardUniversityPress.Kittler,F.A.(1999).Gramophone,Film,Typewriter.(G.Winthrop-Young&M.Wutz,Trans.).Stanford

UniversityPress.Llach,D.C.(2015).BuildersoftheVision:SoftwareandtheImaginationofDesign.NewYork,NY:Routledge.Mariani,P.,&DiaCenterfortheArts(NewYork,N.Y.)(1991).Criticalfictions:thepoliticsofimaginative

writing.Seattle:BayPress.McGann,J.J.(2001).Radianttextuality :literatureaftertheWorldWideWeb.NewYork:Palgrave.Pressman,J.,Marino,M.C.,&Douglass,J.(2015).ReadingProject:ACollaborativeAnalysisofWilliam

Poundstone’sProjectforTachistoscope{BottomlessPit}(1edition).IowaCity:UniversityOfIowaPress.Ramsay,S.(2011).Readingmachines:towardanalgorithmiccriticism.Urbana:UniversityofIllinoisPress.Sterling,B.,(2017).MadeUp:Design’sFictionsKeynote,January29,2011.MadeUpDesign’sFictions,18–26.

Pasadena:ArtCenterGraduatePress.

Suchman,L.(2006).Human-MachineReconfigurations:PlansandSituatedActions(2edition).CambridgeUniversityPress.

Woolgar,S.Law,J.(1991).Configuringtheuser:thecaseofusabilitytrials.SociologyofMonsters:EssaysonPower,TechnologyandDomination,58–99.LondonNewYork:Routledge.

AbouttheAuthor:

AnneBurdickcollaborateswithwritersandtexts(Digital_Humanities,WritingMachines,electronicbookreview.com).SheisProfessorandChairofMediaDesignPractices,ArtCenterCollegeofDesign;visitingfaculty,UniversityofTechnologySydney;andPhDcandidate,SchoolofDesign,CarnegieMellonUniversity.