Decomposing the Design of Time: Commentary on “On the Design of Time”

The Conceptual Difficulties of “Time”

A fundamental flaw in the conceptualizations of space and time is that most individuals envision time and space as two coincident but independent constructs, when they are in fact interdependent. Furthermore, rather than grapple with the difficult philosophical challenges of conceptualizing time individualistically, great minds would inevitably drag the discussion back into the spatial realm (for example, Arthur Eddington’s [1928] Arrow of Time), falling back on the “time-is-like-space” metaphor (Núñez & Cooperrider, 2013).

These cognitive predispositions, coupled with the seductive tangibility of the three spatial dimensions, has led, Hancock asserts, to a disadvantageous neglect of conceptual temporal concerns in the design process. This, however, is an arguable point given the increasing popularity, over the past two to three decades, of methodologies that integrate both structural and temporal elements such as experience-based design (Bate & Robert, 2006; Blythe, Wright, McCarthy, & Bertelsen, 2006).

Although time itself is an emergent property of the dynamic universe, as a reified dimension it cannot be designed. The perception of time is, however, a designable element of experience as a matter of course. Time is not a human-made construct; it significantly affects both animate and inanimate entities (the classic example of the latter is typically illustrated by mountain ranges eroding with time). All organic life-forms experience time in some fashion as a necessity for the execution of life-giving and life-sustaining processes; this rudimentary context for understanding time and duration, called intracellular ticking, seems to derive from the cyclical generation and degeneration of proteins (Tardito, Racagani, & Popoli, 2010).

Therefore, living things were experiencing time long before humans began developing time-sensitive systems. Indeed, behavioral evidence of the basic understanding of the concept of duration and the time of day is evident in the heliotropism of plant species that are sensitive to zeitgebers, such as sunflowers that “follow” the path of the sun to maximize their photosynthetic productivity (Briggs, 2016).

In the animal kingdom, however, at least in some part, humans seem to be unique in their ability to comprehend the notion and progression of time, due to the evolution of episodic memory (Roberts, 2002). Coupling this distinctive capacity with humans’ ubiquitous ability to design to suit our needs in the three spatial dimensions since the advent of our species, there seems to be nothing stopping us from designing the experience of time to fulfill our aspirations as well.

We Are Already Designing Time

In the twenty-first century, one can pull almost any individual off the street, ask how many seconds are in a minute, and receive an answer of “60.” Answers are far less forthcoming if one asks the same layperson to identify which authority imposed this equivalency. Measurements for the perceptions of time and space have varied greatly across generations and cultures. Indeed, one of the contributions of Hancock’s paper that I appreciated the most was the illustrative discussion of how sociocultural and religious norms have shaped the design of time throughout history to reinforce the feasibility of doing so, more productively, in the future. We colloquially conceptualize epochs of time as either before or after the life of Christ. We configured the experience of a “day” around different religious rites in the Western medieval world. We radically altered the daily practicalities of recordkeeping by switching between the Julian and Gregorian calendars, and, of course, what year it is depends on the religion of the individual you are asking.

Nascent efforts to design time in an effort to bolster productivity outside of socioreligious contexts has already been used to great effect (i.e., Daylight Savings Time and leap years). Hancock doubles down on the call for such efforts to be thoughtfully and systematically integrated into the design of large-scale systems. Such advocacy for designing the experience of time appropriately in modern systems seems a rational plan; after all, no one wants another Y2K scare.

Designing Time for the Future

Having conceptually agreed with Hancock that the experience, rather than the dimension, of time may be “designed” to human benefit, I have some important questions about the practicalities of such an effort if designers and practitioners should choose to adopt his perspective when constructing future human–machine systems. The aforementioned abstract nature of time is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it provides myriad opportunities to “design” time as necessary for the achievement of task goals or the fulfillment of user needs. On the other hand, how is one therefore to standardize the experience of time to allow for the evaluation of system effectiveness and efficiency, or to compare across systems that use differently designed units of time? Moreover, the widespread use of such systems may prove difficult, as the spatial metaphors that guide the perception of time vary so widely across geographic and cultural contexts (Núñez, Cooperrider, Doan, & Wassmann, 2012).

Perhaps the most interesting question raised by Hancock’s work is how to design the experience of time in such a way as to reflect its relative nature. A key tenet within Einstein’s theory of relativity is the relativity of simultaneity. This principle states that two events separated in space but taking place at the same time (“simultaneously”) is not an absolute phenomenon but is instead dependent on an observer’s frame of reference (Mansouri & Sexl, 1977). Such conceptual difficulty in designing time to account for this relativity will hold dire consequences in performance domains where time will be passing differently for different stakeholders operating the same system, such as humanity’s efforts to explore Mars and the farther reaches of space.

Conclusion

Hancock proposes an interesting challenge to designers: to think as flexibly and as purposefully about the fourth dimension as they do about the spatial dimensions when creating dynamic human–machine systems. Time, as a fundamental dimension of existence, cannot itself be altered, but our conventional methods of measuring the perceptual experience of time can and should be designed to meet our needs.

Indeed, we have already done so throughout history. Our conceptual frameworks of time, currently based on social rather than system-relevant conventions, can have serious and long-term consequences for safety and performance and are therefore well worth examining. Nascent efforts to design time with a system-oriented approach, such as experience-based design, have emerged over the past few decades, but I would argue that greater multidisciplinary input from cross-cultural psychology, physics, and chronobiology should be integrated into these approaches for the best conceptual and practical design of time.