Following up on my talk with Martin Kaltenbrunner, I have looked into the term “post-digital.” I wanted to understand what this means for my research on interfaces found a paper by Florian Cramer [1] which I feel is very helpful here. He describes that post-digital does not mean a time after computers. Instead, it means that in our current world digital and physical things are completely mixed together.
Many people are starting to feel tired of “perfect” digital systems. Cramer calls this a period of disenchantment. Today, digital technology is often seen as something sterile and clean. Because of this, some people choose older, „nostalgic“ tools like typewriters or vinyl records. They are not just being nostalgic, they are making a deliberate choice to reject certain aspects of electronic technology. They are questioning the idea that a screen is always an “upgrade” or “progress”. This fits with my observation that making everything a flat screen blindly and/by default can actually make the experience worse.
A key idea in post-digital theory (according to Cramer) is that we should stop being fascinated by technology just because it is “new”. Since digital tools are everywhere now, they are no longer disruptive. This means we can look at them more critically. This connects to the “whimsical UX” angle I discussed I another post. If we stop trying to make everything super-efficient and high-tech, we can focus on other qualities of the interaction. We can start using digital and physical materials in more playful or unconventional ways.
In my research, I think it could be interesting to use this post-digital framework to move beyond just choosing between a screen or a physical button. The goal is a post-digital decision-making: using the technology most suitable to the job, rather than automatically “defaulting” to the latest innovative medium. This might mean using “intentional friction” to slow a user down and make them think, rather than making everything as fast as possible. This perspective aligns with Post-Digital Interface Criticism [2], which suggests that interfaces should be visible and reflective rather than “seamless” and invisible.
The next step is to find where exactly to start designing and changing. Maybe finding out if the feeling from physical installations can work in the digital world too. By using “unserious” frameworks, playful/emotional design I might find better ways to design everyday interfaces that feel more human and less sterile. Cramer’s idea of a “hacker attitude“ (taking systems apart and using them in ways that subvert their original intention) could also be a great starting point for this.
[1] https://lab404.com/142/cramer.pdf
[2] https://mediacommons.org/tne/pieces/manifesto-post-digital-interface-criticism
