CMC and the individual

CMC is a tool for people to use. Just like the telephone, CMC can bring people closer together. Yet, the majority don’t see it like that before they use it. For many, using a computer itself does not ﬁ t their self-image; for others who are computer users the notion of communicating via a computer seems to be perverse, since communication is about human relationships in which they can see no place for a machine.

Much of human behaviour is ritualistic. We sleep on the same side of the bed, dry our bodies bit by bit in the same order after taking a bath or shower. Rituals simplify life so that departing from them takes thought and reduces time for other things. More fundamentally, though, these rituals are closely bound to our personal self-image; they symbolise the way we present ourselves to ourselves and the world. It is not just convenient to have our desk arranged in a particular way, it also indicates our acceptance or rejection of order, and some under currents of attitude to our work. Those few people who refuse to own cars or television sets are making proud statements about themselves and their attitude to life. So too are those who reject the very notion of using CMC. It would cut across the familiar rituals of their daily life on two counts: ﬁ rst it would be more time consuming (yes, it would at ﬁ rst) and less familiar than the telephone or letters; secondly it would cut across their self-image as non-technology people – they would not feel good about using it. What becomes crucial is that their concept of themselves as non-technology people prevents them trying out CMC; whereas only through use can they establish new rituals which make CMC integral to the social context (as has happened with radio and television).

For some whose self-image is strongly non-technological the barrier can be broken down. If the terminal literally becomes ‘part of the furniture’ on someone’s desk it loses its cold technological aura. Then, going on-line is endowed with feelings much like those we experience when lifting mail from the doormat or pigeon-hole. Once over the initial barrier, with the system beginning to feel familiar, it is possible for individuals to reach a decision about the usefulness or otherwise of CMC. Until that time any rational decision may be impossible.

There is some confi rmation of the importance of this human interface in acting as a barrier to use of CMC in the difference between the ways in which email and fax have been adopted. It seems that, almost accidentally, different patterns of use make fax fi t more easily than email into existing behaviour rituals. A fax machine is often dealt with by a specialist operator, and becomes a magic device for transporting pieces of paper produced in the normal way. Email and computer conferencing by contrast are not normally fi ltered through operators – they demand an intimate

The human interface 69 ‘hands on’ relationship with the machine so that side-stepping the human interface

is not possible. In order to establish the use of CMC we need, therefore, to provide access to on- line facilities on every desk to create an environment in which individuals can adapt the machine easily to their own self-image and personal rituals. This goes further than the usual notion of ‘user friendliness’ and involves looking at the machine in the context of the whole personal work space. Far from reaching this ideal CMC, as it now operates in Britain, almost perversely caters to the prejudices of the non- technology self-image. We still have to key in a twenty-digit series of code in order to use JANET internationally; and we generally use systems which are command rather than menu driven, in small print, without colour, and without the support of a good on-line HELP service.

CMC and the individual