Answer:
The code to this question can be given as:
Code:
public interface Test //define interface
{
public abstract Duration getDuration(); //define method
getDuration.
public abstract Result check(int a);
//define method
check .
public abstract double getScore();
//define method getScore.
}
Explanation:
In the above code, we define an interface that is "Test" inside an interface, we define three methods that can be defined as:
- First, we define a method that is "getDuration" that method returns Duration as an object.
- Second, we define a method that is "check" this method accepts an integer parameter that is a and return Result.
- The third method is "getScore" this method will return a double value.
If you are on a desktop computer you can press the top row key "F3" and a little box will pop up and you can type the word you are looking for in there and it will find that word on the page you are on and take you straight to it.
Answer:Technology law scholars have recently started to consider the theories of affordance and technological mediation, imported from the fields of psychology, human-computer interaction (HCI), and science and technology studies (STS). These theories have been used both as a means of explaining how the law has developed, and more recently in attempts to cast the law per se as an affordance. This exploratory paper summarises the two theories, before considering these applications from a critical perspective, noting certain deficiencies with respect to potential normative application and definitional clarity, respectively. It then posits that in applying them in the legal context we should seek to retain the relational user-artefact structure around which they were originally conceived, with the law cast as the user of the artefact, from which it seeks certain features or outcomes. This approach is effective for three reasons. Firstly, it acknowledges the power imbalance between law and architecture, where the former is manifestly subject to the decisions, made by designers, which mediate and transform the substance of the legal norms they instantiate in technological artefacts. Secondly, from an analytical perspective, it can help avoid some of the conceptual and definitional problems evident in the nascent legal literature on affordance. Lastly, approaching designers on their own terms can foster better critical evaluation of their activities during the design process, potentially leading to more effective ‘compliance by design’ where the course of the law’s mediation by technological artefacts can be better anticipated and guided by legislators, regulators, and legal practitioners.
Keywords
Affordance, technological mediation, postphenomenology, legal theory, compliance by design, legal design
