Response to "The Impossibility of Interface"

The Impossibility of Interface was a bit difficult to read at first, but once I dove in, it offered many interesting perspectives on the idea of an interface, something I have never thought about before. It provided many realizations and explanations to our first project, especially when it explained about how interfaces link processes to each other, which is literally what we did. When Fuller describes the experience of the bakers who have no idea how to bake bread, but are controlling the process through interfaces, I felt this mirrored our exchange of maps. I am ultimately in control of creating an interactive digital medium (an interface) that describes and presents another students experiences that I have no relation to nor know exactly what their process was. The bakers did not know how to bake the bread, but they were control.

As a reflection on the terms first order and second order, I had a difficult time determining if I even had any first order interfaces in my map because I overviewed and took an active role in all of my interactions. My alarm clock woke me up, but before it did I had to program the time for its action to take place. So possibly, at the time I set the alarm, it was a second order interface, but when it woke me up, it was a first order experience. It is something interesting to think about how a static object can change its interface and interactions through time.