The first example of an interface that I thought of was the controls on a camera, which are historically specific. Classic SLRs and rangefinders like the Nikon F and Leica M had very simple, mechanical controls: a shutter release button, a shutter speed dial on the body, and an aperture ring and a focusing ring on the lens. Beginning in the ’80s, camera controls became electronic. The interface was freed from the limitations of mechanical systems, and it shifted to an interface based on buttons and one or two dials whose function changed depending on the exposure mode. However, for the last several years, there has been a retro trend to bring back some of the physical controls from the past. For example, the Fuji X100T and X-T1 have a shutter speed dial and an aperture ring just like classic cameras, as well as an additional exposure compensation dial that some cameras with more modern controls even have, such as the Sony A7ii.
In the chapter “‘So the Colors Cover the Wires’: Interface, Aesthetics, and Usability,” Matthew G. Kirshenbaum asks “What role, then, should aesthetics have in interface design?” His answer to this question is to create what David Gelernter calls “deep beauty,” the “idealized integration of form and function.” This idea has roots in the Bauhaus, which influenced the design of the Leica M, and is frequently reiterated in online discussions where cameras are noted for being beautiful or ugly. In the case of camera interfaces, it’s a matter of creating a user experience where the photographer “feels in control” of the camera. The exercise of control is set in opposition to the “laziness” and “uncertainty” of automation, which was once advertised as liberating the photographer from the distracting, time-consuming process of setting controls so that they could pay full attention to the task of taking photos. It is interesting that both types of camera interfaces claim some sort of transparency, the first making it easy to see and change settings on the camera, the second making it easy to ignore the camera. The fact that people have preferences for different types of interfaces shows that we do live in an “interface culture” as Steve Johnson asserts. They are a matter of taste and aesthetics, not something that’s merely utilitarian. As Kirshenbaum argues, interfaces are “where representation and its attendant ideologies are most conspicuous…where we deploy our most creative features and imaginative flourishes.” The rings and dials on cameras like the Fuji X100T are highly visible aesthetic statements about usability, and combined with its specialized function and stylish industrial design, succeeds in creating “deep beauty.”