A zone of indetermination occurs within all interactive work whenever the user is required to do something, where, simply, if they don’t the work will either stop, waiting in an interminable paused state (after which time it may undertake some programmatic default behaviour - in effect ‘deciding’ for you), or in some contexts end or be dramatically interrupted - for instance in some electronic games where to pause and wonder what to do will inevitably and rapidly lead to your character or avatar being brutally terminated. That this indeterminancy is fraught is evidenced by much of the work undertaken in Human Computer Interaction and interaction design can be understood as largely about mitigating, or otherwise minimising the zone of indetermination so that what a user needs to do, now or next, is both immediately apparent and largely transparent. 

However, the distance or interval between reception and action is a zone of indetermination between perceiving, understanding and then deciding. The extent of this interval is critical to how a work is experienced and is fundamental to the recognition of authorial direction and voice. Given this it could be argued that in Korsakow films where simple or even single choices are offered, for example where a particular interface may only offer one thumbnail link to the next sequence, that at such moments there is little affect because this indeterminate zone is highly determined to the extent that there is only one possible action available if you want to continue. However, this is a misreading of the relation between the choices offered via an interface, affect, and indetermination, as it mistakes the quantity of choices with their quality. How affective the zone of indetermination is does not have to relate to how many thumbnails a Korsakow film offers at any particular moment, but to how instrumental they are. In other words where these choices are obvious, direct and literal affect is correspondingly reduced. [Using these terms we can that an encyclopedic work tends towards the perception image, we spend our time noticing all that is there, while something like a first person shooter falls within the action image with its emphasis on rapidity of reflex.]

Menu’s in a program in this sense voiceless, at least in the manner that they feel like they are there by design, committee, habit, convention, practicality and the reasonable need to aid in the task at hand which is, generally, to use the program for getting something else done. In particular with software design there are established and often enforced conventions - for example within Apple’s OS X operating system - where any proficient user knows there will be an Apple, Application, File, and Edit menu, in that order, always. This makes the distance between perception and action, between seeing and doing next, in terms of the interface, a literal action image where, for example, clicking the File menu in OS X will always produce a descending menu with a common set of menu tasks associated with opening, creating, closing, and saving the sorts of files associated with that particular application.