The interface is born with the aim to establish a dialogue between machine and humans. It's a tool that allows the individual to communicate with many devices, replacing, for instance, the long lines of code (cryptic and inaccessible to any person not familiar withthe coding languages) with the desktop metaphor and its object oriented basis, or other pattern system, based on established conventions by the interaction design and the user experience pillars.

Like any language, it's bidirectional, while it forms a dialogue. We often think of interfaces as passive systems, effectively and transparently designed to allow us to access information or give orders to perform certain actions. Mechanical features, mathematical abilities and an infallible accuracy are attributed to any technological device, implicit in its engineering and explicit in its interface. But as in any dialogue,information is filtered, ordered, prioritized, shown or hidden in benefit of the implicated parts. That is why is important to understand the interface as a dialogue, and not as a monologue.

What happens when the device with which we interact has certain imperfections that are not willing not be discovered? Are we capable to detect those imperfections or is the illusion of control that the interface gives us enough to convince us of its precision and accuracy? Must the designer think and design systems for not disapointing the user on it's relations with the devices or must he design interfaces where the communication is transparent, therefore dissapointing? Who decides what information to show and why?

As designers, do we assume the responsibility of designing honest interfaces and denounce dishonest practices?