Semiotics in Interface Design:

The Manufacturing of a Global Language

Maisie Weinschenk

Twentieth Century Theory & Criticism (Tuesday Section)

Columbia College of Chicago

May 9, 2011

Introduction

Twentieth century designers strived to create a self-evident object that would signify to

the user what its function was. The invention of the computer consequently led to a new brand of

user-friendly designs; rooted in computer-based interaction and interface design. Using the

structuralist theory of semiotics through theories of Charles Peirce and Ferdinande De Saussure,

I seek to prove how contemporary interface design creates a universal semiotic language rooted

in the design of contemporary usability.

Semiotics

Semiotics is a system of signs developed from Structuralist theory. Structuralism enables

the study and categorization of human’s construction and maintenance of reality.1 The sign is the

most crucial study in semiotics and is defined by Charles Sanders Pierce as being anything that

stands for something else to some interpreter.2

The two dominant figures in semiotics are the Swiss linguist Ferdinand De Saussure and the

American philosopher Charles Sanders Pierce. Saussure split the content of a sign into two parts;

signified and signifier. To demonstrate the content of a sign, structuralist theorist often use

obscure objects like trees for the subject of sign analyzing. The Saussurian model would claim

that within the sign of a tree the signified is the concept or idea that one has of a tree3. Pierce

recognized three major ingredients for a sign. In a Saussurian model the signifier is merely a

socially acceptable image or word that represents an object. Pierce uses the term representamen

in place of signifier. The only difference between representamen and signifier is the focus that

the representamen has on actual form of the object and how form conveys meaning. Pierce’s

term for the signified is the interpretant, which is when the representamen is mentally interpreted

and given meaning4 . Pierce used the term object to refer to what the representamen is

representing, and is the real object rooted in reality.

Within this triadic relationship there is a sub-relationship between representamen and

object. If the representamen resembles or imitates the object, then the sign is considered iconic.

Another kind of sign is an indexical sign, which exists because of a casual relationship between

representamen and the object. In the case of an indexical sign, the sign does not represent the

object, but the representamen creates a link between it and the object in the mind of the

perceiver. A sign is considered symbolic if the relationship between the object and the

representamen is purely conventional, and prior knowledge is necessary. At this point, one can

stress thearbitrary nature of the object in comparison to what the representamen resembles or

how the representamen infers the notion of information. Peirce stresses that most signs are not

mutually exclusive, and contain some elements of iconicity, indexicality and symbolism.

Contemporary Design

Viewing semiotics within the framework of high modernist design in the early and mid-

twentieth century, one can see the designers urge to produce a product which communicates its

correct function. Viewing each product as a sign, communicating function and implementing

action, designers sought for the user to understand the denotation of the object without

explanation. This authentic design was possible when precise design and function of each

separate part of the product was implemented.

Contemporary design no longer requires the objects functions to be self-evident. I will

demonstrate this by analyzing the object of the coffee maker. In the twentieth century, a coffee

maker consisted of a long beaker type object with various levers, openings and handles. When

designer approached a coffee maker their concerns consisted of making sure the object could

make coffee and that the coffee maker would be easy to use and be able to communicate its

goals. In contemporary design, the inter-workings of a coffee maker is irrelevant to the usability

designer and the user. The coffee maker is now a computer, which has a couple functions. How

the machine actually makes coffee is trivial to today’s user. The engineer’s work is closed off and

hidden, and all users se is the aesthetic qualities of the exterior and a digital menu of coffee

options. that digital menu is a separate entity from the actual mechanics of the coffee maker. This

is where semiotic usability lies within a product. Consequently, the designer is no longer focused

on the objects physical mechanics and is therefore freed to create a digital product that focuses

solely on being used by humans. The digital coffee maker’s functionality is now tied to computer

programming. This freeing of the designer lets their focus lie within usability instead of the

denotation of the actual object. This freeing of the designer gives way to a more universal

usability template that can be applied to all technological or alien objects.

Semiotics and Interface Design

Much like the coffee maker, simple mechanical objects are becoming computerized

systems with digital menu options. This technology is the same of an actual personal computer.

When a computer program, personal or otherwise, is designed for human use, it displays pages

geared for human interaction and navigation. These pages are known as interface design.

Interface design is the design of the coffee maker’s menu options, the lay-out of a social

networking site, or the dashboard of a military tank. Semiotics exists within interface due to the

designers need tocreate an interface in which humans can navigate freely. The designer is a

semitoic arranger, combining various signs to make up an interface that conveys both meaning

and interaction simultaneously. This arranging of signs by a designer is the link between the

purely technological software, an object which has no capacity to communicate to a human

freely, and the software’s intentions to implement the user’s desires. The interface consists of

complicated buttons, scroll bars, images, text and specific instructions. The representamen in this

case corresponds totheform that thesign takes in the interface. The object corresponds to the

functionality of the sign and the interpretant corresponds to the sign generated in the mind of the

user. This is how semiotics works with interface on a basic level. Each facet of an interface is a

sign that implies meaning or action. These meanings or actions work with other signs to create

the interface experience. It is the corrective cooperation betwixt various signs and the skill of an

inter-face designer which allows interface’s to feel like a separate world beyond reality.

Conclusion

Modern neurological science is able to map movement in the conscious and unconscious

mind. This mapping allows designers to base their interface designs on proven neurological

interactions between a human mind and their technology. This neurological implementation to

interface design brings about a level of authentic universality. The interface still functions as

semiotics, but the representamen’s actions increasingly become more rooted in neurological

reality rather than culture. Designers are able to understand how human mind’s notice, respond,

and remember. Interface design uses a sign to communicate navigation, and the representamen

exists to demonstrate its functions. Therefore, the user creates the interpretant when the

representamen is interpreted in the users mind. However, in interface design, the representamen

does not represent an object rooted in material reality. The sign that is the search bar, the

computer icon that is clicked on, or the button that says brew coffee has no original object. It

exists only in digital reality and therefore the object’s representamen represents itself creating a

more authentic sign. This authentic sign implemented in a neurologically understood design

creates a universal understanding linking what the representamen represents, the function that the

representamen signals to the machine, and the interpretation in the user’s mind. This authentic

semiotic interface design can be implemented into almost all forms of technology. Much like the

coffee maker, products will become more computerized and the interface design will float as a

separate universal entity. As a separate entity, interface design will directly reflect the human

mind and become a global language rooted not in culture, but in a authentic understanding of

human decision-making.

1Morris, Charles. Foundations of the Theory of Signs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1938.

2 Peirce, C. S., Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vols. 1–6, 1931–1935, Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss, eds., vols. 7–8, 1958, Arthur W. Burks, ed, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.. 1931-58: 8 volumes including published works along with previously unpublished work. Organized themetically, split up across volumes. Definition of a sign found in Logic Viewed as Semeiotics, Introduction, Number 2: Phaneroscopy, 285-287.

3 Malcolm, Grant. Goguen, Joesph A. Signs and Representations: Semiotics for User Interface Design. Department of COmputer Science and Engineering. University of California at San Diego, USA. 2009. Definition of sign, representamen, and interpretant. Volume 1.

4 Nadin, Mihai. Interface Design. A Semiotic Paradigm. Ohio STate University. 1985.

6. Peirce, C. S., Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vols. 1–6, 1931–1935, Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss, eds., vols. 7–8, 1958, Arthur W. Burks, ed, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.. 1931-58: 8 volumes including published works along with previously unpublished work. Organized themetically, split up across volumes. Definition of a sign found in Logic Viewed as Semeiotics, Introduction, Number 2: Phaneroscopy, 285-287