Why don't telephones have off switches? Understanding the use of everyday technologies

Unlike other technologies, the telephone is unusual in that it cannot be 'turned off'. Almost uniquely, its design does not incorporate an off switch, or when it does, it tends to be located in an inaccessible position (such as on the underside of the phone). Rather than arguing that this is a special feature of telephones, this paper argues that this is an example of designers seeing rules as generators of action, rather than resources for action. That is, a rule of phone behaviour is " when a phone rings, answer it ". However, rules do not simply generate action. We can choose when not to follow it. Support for this case has been neglected by designers, forcing individuals to appropriate other technologies to support not answering the phone. These rules of use are implicit in how we conceptualise the use of technology, and in turn, how we perform design. We suggest that designers can be aided by understanding better the nature of rule following, allowing them to design technology that supports 'deviant', yet equally valid modes of use. The authors have long shared an interest in the telephone as a ubiquitous, everyday technology. The telephone is a central part of the way we conduct our lives, but perhaps surprisingly, there have been few investigations into its use from a non-technical standpoint 1. It is as if the telephones' very ubiquity makes it invisible when compared to the investigation of more esoteric and advanced technologies. We do not need to emphasise the importance of the telephone in everyday communication, yet its simplicity of design and operation does not imply a simplicity of use. Particularly with the introduction of new telephone services there is opportunity for innovation in telephone use and design. To make a wider point, to ignore " simple " technologies is to commit a grave mistake. For, as some writers have argued, technology appears to be moving to increasingly single task devices: " information appliances " , as they have come to be known. Raskin (in Nielson, 1988) defines these information appliances as small systems primarily intended to perform a single task. To better design these information appliances it is important that we understand something of how simple devices are used in context. The last ten years have seen a growing interest in studies examining the use of technology in its context of use. Laboratory experiments studying decontextualised …