Machines develop around the shape of their human operatorsâliterally, in physical form and figuratively in cognitive operation. The object often just has to fit in the right ways. The handle of a vacuum needs to match the hand (well enough) and itâs height needs to match human scale (well enough), but it doesnât need to mold much to a toe (except to stay out of its way). The interaction between machine and user is reflected in this fit.
Loose physical fit can be the result of tighter cognitive or emotional fit. The interior of a car is very much shaped and scaled according to human proportions, but it doesnât âfit like a glove.â The buffer space serves other purposes, including comfort, luxuriousness, interaction between passengers, and general flexibility in the use of the interior. Perfect fit should, therefore, rarely be expected to manifest as perfect physical fit.Â
When a person uses a machine, she closes the gap between herself and the object. That is, she operates a machine by reaching out, bridging the buffer space, and creating a point of contact with the machine. Because steering wheels arenât attached directly to the body, drivers must extend their arms to manipulate them.
When fit is loose, itâs common to improvise solutions to fill the space. Hacks may improve physical ergonomic fit, but can also serve non-physical functions. Users may add Post-It reminders or button labels to aid memory. They may install a curtain over a window for privacy. They might also do things to improve other types of cognition cycles, for example, to create better fits with their daily routines. Storing a toothbrush in the bathroom is more convenient than storing it in a desk drawer away from a sink. These are features that arenât built into the original design. Hacks improve technology by tightening fit. In doing so, more processes are automated, fewer functions are performed by the user.
Hacks are at the same time component and machine. Though they come into being in response to existing machines and may be less useful without the prior, theyâre not necessarily dependent on the originals. They can be independent add-ons, reusable in other places, or incorporated directly into the original machine. A cupholder built in to a car dashboard may be more stable (physical fit) and less tacky (cognitive fit) whereas a detached one can be installed on either the driver or passenger side or in an altogether different vehicle. Hacks narrow the gap in both cases. When incorporated into the original machine, they remove the need for the user to manage the hack as a separate entity (i.e. the user no longer needs to mount the hack) while also removing a degree of modularity (i.e. the hack is now hardwired and can not be removed or re-purposed elsewhere).
As the gap between user and machine closes, humans are progressively freed (or displaced) from operating machines. Hacks extend the machine, then progress to such a degree that they oust the userâfit is tightened and then some. In replicating human operation, hacks are robots. At introduction, new technology has to work with and within existing infrastructure thus robots, at least initially, take the form of earlier machine designs. The switches and levers of the prior machines, having been cast around the mold of human anatomy, now turn around to form a mold from which robots are cast. Because prior machines were shaped around humans, robots resemble humans.
Because the automated object 'works by itself', its resemblance to the autonomous human being is unmistakable, and the fascination thus created carries the day. We are in the presence of a new anthropomorphism. Formerly the image of man was clearly imprinted in the morphology and the manner of use of tools, of furniture, or of the house itself. [5] In the perfected technical object this compliance has been destroyed, but it has been replaced by a symbolism of superstructural rather than primary functions: it is no longer his gestures, his energy, his needs and the image of this body that man projects in to automated objects, but instead the autonomy of his consciousness, his power of control, his own individual nature, his personhood. Â
In closing the gap, the design is less constrained to the human form. It only needs to incorporate the human in whatever respect the human is still involved. The Roomba, in replacing the traditional push vacuum, for example, is operated by a button on the top surface and only needs to adapt to the human on this level. Itâs shape is more dramatically dictated by itâs interface with the environment and by itâs cognitive fit with the user.
A machine interfaces not just with its user, but the environment as a whole, which includes other machines and other people. Its shape is reflective of its interactions with humans as well as its surroundings. Here, too, hacks improve fit. Wheels clearly improve cars and vacuums; tailoring them to their particular conditions (the road vs, the carpet) enhances fit further. The machine is a layer between human and environmentâimproving the machine-environment relationship, like improving human-machine interaction, advances technology. The original machine is a hack itself, fitted between the user and other machines of the environment.