Symbolic Interactions:towards a Cognitive Scientific Theory of Meaning in Human Technology Interaction

Abstract

Information technology has perpetuated the role of symbolism in everyday life practice, through its reliance on sign systems for its creation and operation. Increasingly attention has been placed on applying semiotic techniques to analyze user interface design and usability. Surprisingly, although the move towards symbolic interaction has been one of the most striking components of the digital shift, it has proven difficult to build bridges between semiotics and HTI-design thinking. In this article we argue that the problems in linking semiotic analysis of human technology interaction with modern HTIdesign paradigms such as usability or user experience arise from a theoretical gap between the paradigms of semiotics, human cognition and thinking -technological psychosemiotics. Consequently, it is necessary to reformulate principal insights of semiotics such as the triangle of reference, by replacing the intuitive concept of thought, with modern philosophical and psychological concepts of human thinking. This allows the unification of usability research based on cognitive research with the analysis of signs in modern semiotics. It is possible to unify the conceptual analysis of signification and semiosis with conceptual and empirical work typical to modern human technology interaction research and design, thus making semiotics an essential tool within the swiftly developing paradigms of interaction design.

Simplicity and the art of something more: A cognitive-semiotic approach to simplicity and complexity in human-technology interaction and design experience

“…The perceptive processes involve acts of finding patterns in received sensory data and high-level cognition (i.e., indirect or more abstract thinking that involves processes of classification, association, reflection, evaluation against other information held by the individual, as opposed to low-level cognition in which reactions to the external world happen almost instantaneously) require the recognition of patterns of information in order to create and develop categories of meaning (Chater & Vitányi, 2003). The problem of induction accounts for the complexity involved in establishing patterns: Infinite numbers of patterns exist even for finite data sets (Chater & Vitányi, 2003;Saariluoma & Rousi, 2015). That is, through limited tools and choices, the possibilities for differing patterns are unfathomable.…”

“…Apperception differs from mere perception in terms of the act in which people mentally represent information contents that are not perceivable by nature, whether in terms of sense data or remembered sensory experience (Russell, 1917(Russell, /1951 or qualia, the solely subjective qualities that shape the experience for the individual and cannot be entirely communicated to another individual (Jackson, 1982). Unperceivable contents or phenomena additionally include concepts of time, such as eternity or future instances (i.e., tomorrow; Saariluoma & Rousi, 2015). In other words, unperceivable contents cannot be reduced to perceptual stimuli but can be informed by past experiences and ideas of what such concepts may mean.…”

Techno-Trust and Rational Trust in Technology – A Conceptual Investigation

“…This is why machines normally operate in limited semiospheres or domains [27,29]. They do not have general intentions, which surpass semiotic (sign and symbol related systems) limits of predefined domains [30]. Thus, chess machines play chess well, but they are useless in terms of plotting out how to create the best painting of the century.…”

Creative Interpretation in Web Design Experience

“…Apperception is the process whereby new experiences are integrated into a person's past experiences and knowledge (Runes, 1972). Apperception is an active and creative process that not only portrays an understanding of the encountered design but also defines the design itself (Saariluoma & Rousi, 2015). Through isolating factors contributing to apperception of design elements and subsequent emotional reactions, designers have greater control in styling their design towards desired experiential outcomes (Rousi, 2013).…”