PROMISE: Our kitties will never sit on top of content. Please turn off your ad blocker for our site.
puuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrr
Rachel Plotnik
Published: Thursday, February 28, 2019 - 12:03 All day every day, throughout the United States, people push buttons—on coffee makers, TV remote controls, and even social media posts they “like.” For more than seven years, I’ve been trying to understand why, looking into where buttons came from, why people love them—and why people loathe them. As I researched my recent book, Power Button: A History of Pleasure, Panic, and the Politics of Pushing (MIT Press, 2018), about the origins of American push-button society, five main themes stood out, influencing how I understand buttons and button-pushing culture. Just give it a try. During the late 19th century, the Eastman Kodak Co. began selling button-pushing as a way to make taking photographs easy. The company’s slogan, “You press the button, we do the rest,” suggested it wouldn’t be hard to use newfangled technological devices. This advertising campaign paved the way for the public to engage in amateur photography—a hobby best known today for selfies. Yet in many contexts, both past and present, buttons are anything but easy. Have you ever stood in an elevator pushing the close-door button over and over, hoping and wondering if the door will ever shut? The same quandary presents itself at every crosswalk button. Programming a so-called “universal remote” is often an exercise in extreme frustration. Now think about the intensely complex dashboards used by pilots or DJs. For more than a century, people have been complaining that buttons aren’t easy: Like any technology, most buttons require training to understand how and when to use them. Pilots need a lot of training and practice to know what to do with all those buttons. The earliest push buttons appeared on vending machines, and as light switches and as bells for wealthy homeowners to summon servants. At the turn of the 20th century, manufacturers and distributors of push-button products often tried to convince customers that their every whim and desire could be gratified at a push—without any of the mess, injury, or effort of previous technologies like pulls, cranks, or levers. As a form of consumption, button pushing remains pervasive: People push for candy bars and tap for streaming movies or Uber rides. Just press here and get more detergent. Amazon’s “Dash” button takes push-button pleasure to the extreme. It’s tempting to think about affixing single-purpose buttons around your house, ready to instantly reorder toilet paper or laundry detergent. But this convenience comes at a price: Germany recently outlawed Dash buttons, because they don’t let customers know how much they’ll pay when they place an order. Throughout my research, I discovered that people worry that buttons will fall into the wrong hands or be used in socially undesirable ways. My children will push just about any button within their reach—and sometimes those not within reach, too. The children of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were the same. People often complained about children honking automobile horns, ringing doorbells, and otherwise taking advantage of buttons that looked fun to press. It’s a big button in the middle of the steering wheel. Adults, too, often received criticism for how they pushed. In the past, managers triggered ire for using push-button bells to keep their employees at their beck and call, like servants. More recently there are stories in the news about disgraced figures like Matt Lauer using buttons to control the comings and goings of his staff, taking advantage of a powerful position. Beginning in the late 1800s, one of the most common fears registered about buttons involved warfare and advanced weapons: Perhaps one push of a button could blow up the world. Fortunately, starting a nuclear war is a bit harder than this. This anxiety has persisted from the Cold War to the present, playing prominently in movies like Dr. Strangelove and in news headlines. Although no such magic button exists, it’s a potent icon for how society often thinks about push-button effects as swift and irrevocable. This concept is also useful in geopolitics. As recently as 2018, President Donald Trump bragged to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un over Twitter that “I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!” As I completed my book, I was struck by how much voices of the past echoed those of the present when discussing buttons. Since the 1880s, American society has deliberated about whether button pushing is a desirable or dangerous form of interaction with the world. Persistent concerns remain about whether buttons make life too easy, pleasurable, or rote. Or, on the flip side, observers worry that buttons increase complexity, forcing users to fiddle unnecessarily with “unnatural” interfaces. Yet as much as people have complained about buttons over the years, they remain stubbornly present—an entrenched part of the design and interactivity of smartphones, computers, garage door openers, car dashboards, and video game controllers. As I suggest in Power Button, one way to remedy this endless discussion about whether buttons are good or bad is to instead begin paying attention to power dynamics—and the ethics—of push buttons in everyday life. If people begin to examine who gets to push the button, and who doesn’t, in what contexts, under which conditions, and to whose benefit, they might begin to understand buttons’ complexity and importance. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Quality Digest does not charge readers for its content. We believe that industry news is important for you to do your job, and Quality Digest supports businesses of all types. However, someone has to pay for this content. And that’s where advertising comes in. Most people consider ads a nuisance, but they do serve a useful function besides allowing media companies to stay afloat. They keep you aware of new products and services relevant to your industry. All ads in Quality Digest apply directly to products and services that most of our readers need. You won’t see automobile or health supplement ads. So please consider turning off your ad blocker for our site. Thanks, Rachel Plotnik is an assistant professor of cinema and media studies at Indiana University, Bloomington. Her research agenda examines human-machine relations, particularly as they relate to interfaces, and how these play a role in the technological and social aspects of daily life.I Studied Buttons for Seven Years
Five lessons about how and why people push them
1. Buttons aren’t actually easy to use
2. Buttons encourage consumerism
3. Button-pushers are often seen as abusive
4. Some of the most-feared buttons aren’t real
5. Not a lot has changed in more than a century
Not so fast, Staples
Our PROMISE: Quality Digest only displays static ads that never overlay or cover up content. They never get in your way. They are there for you to read, or not.
Quality Digest Discuss
About The Author
Rachel Plotnik
© 2023 Quality Digest. Copyright on content held by Quality Digest or by individual authors. Contact Quality Digest for reprint information.
“Quality Digest" is a trademark owned by Quality Circle Institute, Inc.