(^324) | dEsiGninG for EMErGinG tECHnoLoGiEs
component attempts an action the system can let all of its parts know
what is happening, if the action was completed, and what the new state
looks like. The quality of this feedback is important to crafting the aes-
thetic of the system. Is it friendly? Verbose? Human readable? All of
these things will change the overall feel of the products and services
that are part of the network.
These are some possible aesthetic elements we can begin to use to dis-
cuss the qualities of a network system. None are inherently good or
bad; they are the basis for a common language that lets us discuss the
aspects of a network that affect its quality. An opaque network with lit-
tle agency creates a certain type of interaction, one largely dictated by
its owner. A low-opacity network with a lot of agency allows for more
flexibility and potential wrangling by the person interfacing with the
system.
The types of systems and products described by the above aesthetic lan-
guage can be understood in two important ways (among others):
- As a hard system: a system model that is concrete and constructed
to achieve an objective. These types of systems are easy to analyze
and model because they are generally made up of discrete pieces
that each plays a set part, most often actual things that exist in the
physical world. - As a soft system: a system model that is fuzzy and focuses on the
understanding of the system from many perspectives. In this type
of model each piece of the system is based on a subjective under-
standing of the whole, rather than specific objects that exist in the
world.
For the type of design discussed in this chapter we are more concerned
with soft systems, although both soft and hard must exist in order to
fully understand and build a product or service in our networked world.
Soft systems methodology (SSM), a framework for thinking about epis-
temological systems, gives us tools to help understand an unstructured
complex problem through modeling actions and subjective under-
standing of the situation. Unlike hard systems, soft systems models
aren’t about classification; instead the practice seeks to explain differ-
ent relationships by describing them as they are seen, understood, and
acted upon. A single set of objects and relationships could be described
in many different ways, each one equally valid from a different