In contrast with Norman –– who argues flatly for programmers to adopt a more immersive, task-centered approach to computer design rooted in cultural conventions ––Manovich contends in his paper on human-computer interfaces that designers should instead seek to embrace the new language of the computer medium, the language of the interface. The failure of programmers to make use of the full power of the interface as a language in and of itself, Manovich argues, can be traced back to two competing impulses: representation and control. The desire to make computing “represent” or “borrow ‘conventions’ of the human-made physical environment” often inevitably limits the full range of “control” or flexibility the computer interface can offer. But although Manovich clearly leaves some room for common ground between the impulses of representation and control, he tends to paint them at times as almost mutually exclusive to each other. While he is no doubt correct in his assumption that “neither extreme is ultimately satisfactory by itself,” he particularly laments the arbitrary shoveling of old cultural conventions onto the role of the computer as a control mechanism.
Rather than seek to imitate pre-existing forms of communication mediums, Manovich asserts that programmers should embrace the “new literary form of a new medium, perhaps the real medium of a computer – its interface” (92). Only when a user has learned this “new language” can he or she have a truly immersive computing experience. This stands in sharp contrast to Norman, who champions s more populist message of usability and rails against the notion that “if you have not passed the secret rites of initiation into programming skills, you should not be allowed into the society of computer users.”