Post-Digital Communication

Last week I went to Post-Digital, the launch of Mudlark, in Birmingham. While I occasionally do bits of work for Mudlark, I wasn’t sure exactly what to expect there, I just knew it would deal with some abiding interests of mine such as physical computing.

There were a few definitions given of the term post-digital, including Matt defining it as “a state in which we are more concerned with being human than being digital” and Russell Davies encapsulating it nicely for me: “We’re moving past digital infatuation and analogue nostalgia”.

For some of us, digital technology has been commonplace for long enough that we’re becoming a lot more reflective on how it fits together with humanity. Whole companies have risen and died, economic bubbles have popped, and the tools for creating all kinds of digital content have become a great deal more accessible and user friendly.

Neophile and Luddite conversations are fading away, to be replaced with a more reasonable and somewhat more sedate discussion of technologies. While things are still changing massively, we seem to be acclimatised to change and used to the internet having some sway in our everyday lives. Our focus is switching from change to utility.

On the day there was a willingness to talk in a balanced way about the value and sometimes lack of it in digital information. A lot of reactionary arguments are fading away and being replaced with more interesting dialogue.

Russell Davies talked about geek interest in the value of paper publications, Matt Watkins talked about games the centre on human experience rather than a screen, Adrian McEwan was talking about turning electricity usage into information and twitter updates into bubbles. Then there was this from Russell in the questions and answers after his talk:

“There’s going to be a surfeit of engagement. MySociety launch a new way of bothering your MP every other day. If it becomes too easy to lobby in a certain way, people wil ignore it. Analogue friction introduces effort to communication”.

I was immediately reminded of the MIT Press book Honest Signals. One of the tenets in it is that there are honest, unfakeable social signals that act as an unconscious back channel. They indicate your sincerity and depth of conviction, and the energy costs of producing such signals deceptively are prohibitive. They reach right down into why we connect with certain people and not with others. It’s an interesting idea that I’m seriously bastardising by trying to summarise in just a few sentences, but I can see digital parallels with the basic concept that effort signifies sincerity. For instance, Facebook walls littered with reflexive “Happy Birthday” messages and application spam.

In turn, I’m also reminded of Danc’s presentation on a princess rescuing web application as compared to the travails of a videogame. The app would simply require a user to click the “Rescue Princess” button, rather than expend effort to master any kind of difficulty curve.

While digital tools are making things easier and more accessible, when it comes to streamlining social communication this may not be a good thing at all. Reflexive clicks, automation and amplification can wash the sincerity right out of our communications and destroy, if not our ability, then at least opportunities to genuinely connect with people.

Wherever digital technology goes and whatever it does, there is a much older current of humanness following and influencing it, and consequently the most skilled communicators will always transcend their tools.

(CC image by Marvin (PA))