Advertisement

How to Design Spherically as a Matter of Recursion

  • Amanda WindleEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

The design-in of this chapter relates to a one-year interface design. The live, geospatial (GIS) web-based application enables environmental scientists to add, assess and analyse threat assessments to endangered species on a digital map. This requires consensual working on matters of multispecies extinction. Following a testing error involving a cartographic marker, what unfolds is an account of doing atmosphere design. I revisit the geometries of Spheres and research into recursive searching and being-in-a-design-issue.

Keywords

Atmosphere design Foams GIS Interface Maps Species Threat 

References

  1. Haraway, Donna. “The Biopolitics of Postmodern Bodies: Determinations of Self in Immune System Discourse.” In Feminist Theory and the Body: A Reader, edited by Janet Price and Margrit Shildrick, 203–14. New York: Routledge, [1999] 2008.Google Scholar
  2. ———. Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. London: Free Association, 1991.Google Scholar
  3. ———. Staying with the Trouble. Durham: Duke University Press, 2016.Google Scholar
  4. Helmreich, Stefan. Alien Ocean: Anthropological Voyages in Microbial Seas. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2009.Google Scholar
  5. Hustak, Carla, and Natasha Myers. “Involutionary Momentum: Affective Ecologies and the Sciences of Plant/Insect Encounters.” Differences 23, no. 3 (2013): 74–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Latour, Bruno. “Spheres and Networks: Two Ways to Reinterpret Globalization.” Harvard Design Magazine 30 (2009): 138–44.Google Scholar
  7. Law, John. After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. London: Routledge, 2004.Google Scholar
  8. Leszczynski, Agnieszka. “Poststructuralism and GIS: Is There a ‘Disconnect’?” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 27 (2009): 581–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Raffles, Hugh. Insectopedia. New York: Pantheon Books, 2010.Google Scholar
  10. Roberts, Celia. Messengers of Sex: Hormones, Biomedicine and Feminism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Scarry, Elaine. The Body in Pain: The Making and Unmaking of the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985.Google Scholar
  12. Star, Susan Leigh. “Power, Technology, and the Phenomenology of Conventions: On Being Allergic to Onions.” In Boundary Objects and Beyond: Working with Leigh Star, edited by Geoffrey C. Bowker, Stefan Timmermans, Adele Clarke, and Ellen Balka. Cambridge: MIT Press, [1991] 2016.Google Scholar
  13. ———. “Revisiting Ecologies of Knowledge: Work and Politics in Science and Technology (First Appeared in Titled Ecologies of Knowledge: Work and Politics in Science and Technology).” Edited by Geoffrey C. Bowker, Stefan Timmermans, Adele Clarke, and Ellen Balka, 13–47. Cambridge: MIT Press, [1995] 2016.Google Scholar
  14. Star, Susan Leigh, and James R. Griesmer. “Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39.” Social Studies of Science 19, no. 3 (1989): 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Strathern, Marilyn. “Cutting the Network.” The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 2, no. 3 (1996): 517–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sutherland, Jeff. The Art of Doing Twice the Work in Half the Time. London: Business Books, Random House, 2015.Google Scholar
  17. Taylor, Alex, Jasmin Fisher, Byron Cook, Samin Ishtiaq, and Nir Piterman. “Modelling Biology—Working Through (In-)Stabilities and Friction.” Computational Culture: A Journal of Software Studies 1, no. 3 (2014). Accessed August 8, 2017. http://computationalculture.net/article/modelling-biology.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.London College of CommunicationUniversity of the Arts LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations