The information age leaves us somewhat detached from its “beings”, which are data – virtual entities devoid of real substance, other than the media it’s stored on. We are interacting with something that’s much different from our own, and isn’t tangible like us. We’re manipulating information, and it does that to us, but we can’t touch it or shape it. We can come up with a nick-name for a variable, such as Pi, but we can’t hang it on our wall or make soup out of it. So not to be mistaken with the chalk we use to write it on the black-board, true data isn’t something you can grasp, just like emotions. Also, you can’t actually listen to a line of code, if it’s not interpreted by a computer and a speaker. And you can’t see an OS command if it’s not visually represented to you via a screen.

So a language must be phrased. Interfaces are the words we use to speak with information, but we can also use technology to facilitate a creation of a body-language protocol relying on sight, or a tactile messaging manner (example: pressure sensitive to relay any property of a scale or spectrum), or use basic audio signals for cues, much like animals. This is a broadening of the connection between man and machine. Needless to say, these speech incarnations have the potential to thrive, becoming either more evolved and complex (for instance: producing dances, healing with therapeutic touch or composing music, accordingly) or, on the other hand – simpler and intuitive. It will make understanding for both of us easier, and conveying our (and the computer’s) intention much more eloquently. But more importantly, it could make abstract calculation-mechanisms less alienated, and we can communicate with them without even thinking, but by just reacting.