Sensemaking is about contextual rationality, built out of vaguequestions, muddy answers, and negotiated agreements that attempt to reduce ambi-guity and equivocality. The genesis of Sensemaking is a lack of fit between whatwe expect and what we encounter [40]. With Sensemaking, one does not look at thequestion of “which course of action should we choose?”, but instead at an earlierpoint in time where users are unsure whether there is even a decision to be made,with questions such as “what is going on here, and should I even be asking this ques-tion just now?” [40]. This shows that Sensemaking is used to overcome situationsof ambiguity. When there are too many interpretations of an event, people engagein Sensemaking too, to reduce equivocality.

Decision making is traditionally viewed as a sequential process of problem classifi-cation and definition, alternative generation, alternative evaluation, and selection ofthe best course of action [26]. This process is about strategic rationality, aimed atreducing uncertainty [6, 36]. Uncertainty can be reduced through objective analysisbecause it consists of clear questions for which answers exist [5, 40]. Complex-ity can also be reduced by objective analysis, as it requires restricting or reducingfactual information and associated linkages [42]

The central problem requiring Sensemaking ismostly that there are too many potential meanings, and so acquiring informationcan sometimes help but often is not needed. Instead, triangulating information [34],socializing and exchanging different points of view [20], and thinking back of pre-vious experiences to place the current situation into context, as the retrospectionproperty showed us, are a few strategies that are likely to be more successful forSensemaking.

Just as the information processing challenges from Table 1 are not mutually ex-clusive, Sensemaking and decision making cannot be separated, but instead operatesimultaneously. Meaning must be established and then sufficiently negotiated priorto acting on information [42]: Sensemaking shapes events into decisions, and deci-sion making clarifies what is happening [40].

Weick et al. [41, p. 419] formulate a gripping conclusion on what the sevenSensemaking properties are all about: “Taken together these properties suggest thatincreased skill at Sensemaking should occur when people are socialized to makedo, be resilient, treat constraints as self-imposed, strive for plausibility, keep show-ing up, use retrospect to get a sense of direction, and articulate descriptions thatenergize. These are micro-level actions. They are small actions. But they are smallactions with large consequences.”

The seven different properties of Sensemaking can be captured by the acronym SIRCOPE: Social context, Identity construction, Retrospection, Cue extraction, Ongo-ing projects, Plausibility, and Enactment [17–21, 37–39]

Crisis environments are characterized by various types of information problemsthat complicate the response, such as inaccurate, late, superficial, irrelevant, unreli-able, and conflicting information [30, 32]. This poses difficulties for actors to makesense of what is going on and to take appropriate action. Such issues of informationprocessing are a major challenge for the field of crisis management, both concep-tually and empirically [19].

We use the theory of Sensemaking to study exactly this: how people makesense of their environment, and how they give meaning to what is happening. Sense-making is a crucial process in crises, as the manner and thereby the success of howone deals with crucial events is determined by the grasp one has of a situation.

Value Sensitive Design (VSD) emphasizes consideration of stakeholder values when making design decisions [5]. Applying this rationale to the goal of leveraging the capacity of digital workers during crisis events, we identify design solutions that fit the underlying community dynamics, including current work practices, organizational structures, and motivations of digital volunteer work.

Our research reveals several design opportunities in this space. Importantly, informed by the empirical findings presented here, we argue for situating solutions within current work practices and infrastructures.

Based on our collective research on to date, we haveidentified that as tensions ebb and flow, OCs use (or,more precisely, participants engage in) any of the fourtypes of responses that seem to help the OC be gen-erative. The first generative response is labeledEngen-dering Roles in the Moment. In this response, membersenact specific roles that help turn the potentially negativeconsequences of a tension into positive consequences.The second generative response is labeledChannelingParticipation. In this response, members create a nar-rative that helps keep fluid participants informed ofthe state of the knowledge, with this narrative havinga necessary duality between a front narrative for gen-eral public consumption and a back narrative to airthe differences and emotions created by the tensions.The third generative response is labeledDynamicallyChanging Boundaries. In this response, OCs changetheir boundaries in ways that discourage or encouragecertain resources into and out of the communities at cer-tain times, depending on the nature of the tension. Thefourth generative response is labeledEvolving Technol-ogy Affordances. In this response, OCs iteratively evolvetheir technologies in use in ways that are embedded by,and become embedded into, iteratively enhanced socialnorms. These iterations help the OC to socially and tech-nically automate responses to tensions so that the com-munity does not unravel.

These practices are highly situated, emer-gent, and contextualized and thus cannot be prespec-ified the way traditional coordination mechanismscan be. Thus, recent efforts based on an information-processing view to develop typologies of coordina-tion mechanisms (e.g., Malone et al. 1999) may be tooformal to allow organizations to mount an effectiveresponse to events characterized by urgency, novelty,surprise, and different interpretations.

Our findings also point to a broader divide in coor-dination research. Much of the power of traditionalcoordination models resides in their information-processing basis and their focus on the design issuessurrounding work unit differentiation and integra-tion. This design-centric view with its emphasis onrules,structures,andmodalitiesofcoordinationislessuseful for studying knowledge work.

By ignoring the diversity and discord of the ‘goals’ of theparticipants involved, the differentiation of strategies, and the incongruence of theconceptual frames of reference within a cooperating ensemble, much of the currentCSCW research evades the problem of how to provide computer support for peoplecooperating through the establishment of a common information space.

On the one hand, the visibility requirement is amplified by this divergence. Thatis, knowledge of the identity of the originator and the situational context motivat-ing the production and dissemination of the information is required so as to enableany user of the information to interpret the likely motives of the originator. On theother hand, however, the visibility requirement is moderated by the divergence ofinterests and motives. A certain degree of opaqueness is required for discretionarydecision making to be conducted in an environment charged with colliding inter-ests. Hence,visibility must be bounded.

Thus, a computer-basedsystem supporting cooperative work involving decision making should enhancethe ability of cooperating workers to interrelate their partial and parochial domainknowledge and facilitate the expression and communication of alternative perspec-tives on a given problem. This requires a representation of the problem domainas a whole as well as a representation, in some form, of the mappings betweenperspectives on that problem domain.

Reflective Design Strategies In addition shaping our principles or objectives, our foundational influences and case studies have also helped us articulate strategies for reflective design. The first three strategies identified here speak to characteristics of designs that encourage reflection by users. The second group of strategies provides ways for reflecting on the process of design.

Some Reflective Design Challenges

Principles of Reflective Design

Reflective design, like reflection-in-action, advocates practicing research and design concomitantly, and not only as separate disciplines. We also subscribe to a view of reflection as a fully engaged interaction and not a detached assessment. Finally, we draw from the observation that reflection is often triggered by an element of surprise, where someone moves from knowing-in-action, operating within the status quo, to reflection-in-action, puzzling out what to do next or why the status quo has been disrupted

In this effort, reflection-in-action provides a ground for uniting theory and practice; whereas theory presents a view of the world in general principles and abstract problem spaces, practice involves both building within these generalities and breaking them down.

CTP is a key method for reflective design, since it offers strategies to bring unconscious values to the fore by creating technical alternatives. In our work, we extend CTP in several ways that make it particularly appropriate for HCI and critical computing.

CTP synthesizes critical reflection with technology production as a way of highlighting and altering unconsciously-held assumptions that are hindering progress in a technical field.

Ludic design promotes engagement in the exploration and production of meaning, providing for curiosity, exploration and reflection as key values. In other words, ludic design focuses on reflection and engagement through the experience of using the designed object.

goal is to push design research beyond an agenda of reinforcing values of consumer culture and to instead embody cultural critique in designed artifacts. A critical designer designs objects not to do what users want and value, but to introduce both designers and users to new ways of looking at the world and the role that designed objects can play for them in it.

value-sensitive design method (VSD). VSD provides techniques to elucidate and answer values questions during the course of a system's design.

From participatory design, we draw several core principles, most notably the reflexive recognition of the politics of design practice and a desire to speak to the needs of multiple constituencies in the design process.

PD strategies tend to be used to support existing practices identified collaboratively by users and designers as a design-worthy project. While values clashes between designers and different users can be elucidated in this collaboration, the values which users and designers share do not necessarily go examined. For reflective design to function as a design practice that opens new cultural possibilities, however, we need to question values which we may unconsciously hold in common. In addition, designers may need to introduce values issues which initially do not interest users or make them uncomfortabl

We define 'reflection' as referring tocritical reflection, orbringing unconscious aspects of experience to conscious awareness, thereby making them available for conscious choice. This critical reflection is crucial to both individual freedom and our quality of life in society as a whole, since without it, we unthinkingly adopt attitudes, practices, values, and identities we might not consciously espouse. Additionally, reflection is not a purely cognitive activity, but is folded into all our ways of seeing and experiencing the world.

Our perspective on reflection is grounded in critical theory, a Western tradition of critical reflection embodied in various intellectual strands including Marxism, feminism, racial and ethnic studies, media studies and psychoanalysis.

ritical theory argues that our everyday values, practices, perspectives, and sense of agency and self are strongly shaped by forces and agendas of which we are normally unaware, such as the politics of race, gender, and economics. Critical reflection provides a means to gain some awareness of such forces as a first step toward possible change.

We believe that, for those concerned about the social implications of the technologies we build, reflection itself should be a core technology design outcome for HCI. That is to say, technology design practices should support both designers and users in ongoing critical reflection about technology and its relationship to human life.

A: Anything else you’d like to say or tell the new comers and/or the community? L: Mmh, I know how it feels to be limited by your own lack of skills and today’s tools are taking away a little bit of that barrier. And the more the software helps you to get rid of the technical problems of representation, the more creative you can be. While the tool is the same, it’s very fun to see that everybody has its own take to how to use Quill. It wasn’t at first, but now I see more and more people having their own style. It’s so refreshing. I follow the group and what is going on with a lot of attention.

L: It happened to us a couple of times to come up with these kinds of ideas where the audience really understands what we meant and feels as strongly as we did. We want to communicate feelings that we feel ourselves. Whatever the tool is, we wish to convey what we think is great. It sounds a little bit cliché but if you’re out just for the pretty picture, I think it’s a waste of time.

Where did you study and what were some of your first jobs? I actually have a degree in Economics from Colorado College. This was pursued at the behest of my father and after bartending for a year in London after I graduated, I went to the Vancouver Film School and took their course in Multimedia. My first jobs were all menial labor: I worked sorting packages at a Greyhound station, cleaning recycled bottles at a brewery and erected party tents. After VFS, I moved to New York and freelanced as a web designer/flash animator for a bit before I helped found heavy.com with two of the guys I had been freelancing for. That lasted for about five years before I started Buck with my partners in 2003.

participatory approach is compatible with empathic user research [81] that avoids the scientific distance that cuts the bonds of humanity between researcher and subject, pre-empting a major resource for design (empathy, love, care).

Theproblem, then, was centered by social scientists in the process of design. Cer-tainly, many studies in CSCW, HCI, information technology, and informa-tion science at least indirectly have emphasized a dichotomy betweendesigners, programmers, and implementers on one hand and the social ana-lyst on the other.

In particular, concurrency control problems arise when the software, data,and interface are distributed over several computers. Time delays when ex-changing potentially conflicting actions are especially worrisome. ... Ifconcurrency control is not established, people may invoke conflicting ac-tions. As a result, the group may become confused because displays are incon-sistent, and the groupware document corrupted due to events being handledout of order. (p. 207)

Edward Tufte

Noguidance was given to the participants regarding what topography or function of behavior to choose, nor which client tochoose. The BIPs that were submitted included a wide range of behavior topographies and functions, as depicted inTables 2 and 3. The ages of the clients ranged significantly, but were roughly equivalent across the two groups, witha mean age of 8.75 years (range = 3–19) in the treatment group and a mean age of 7.75 years (range = 4–10) in thecontrol group. It seems reasonable that due to reactivity, participants would choose to send a BIP that they believedwas good-quality, however, this reactivity was likely to be equally distributed across groups. Each BIP was then scoredas the pre-test data for that participant. For participants in the control group, the participant was then asked to updatetheir BIP however they see fit over the next 24 h and resubmit it. For participants in the BIP builder group, they wereasked to update their BIP using the BIP builder within the next 24 h. No further instructions were given to theparticipants.

how does misrepresentative information make it to the top of the search result pile—and what is missing in the current culture of software design and programming that got us here?

I don't think passing the entire http client is very idiomatic, but what is quite common is to pass the entire "environment" (aka runtime configuration) that your app needs through every function. In your case if the only variant is the URL then you could just pass the URL as the first parameter to get-data. This might seem cumbersome to someone used to OO programming but in functional programming it's quite standard. You might notice when looking at example code, tutorials, open source libraries etc. that almost all code that reads or writes to databases expects the DB connection information (or an entire db object) as a parameter to every single function. Another thing you often see is an entire "env" map being passed around which has all config in it such as endpoint URLs.

Something that I've found helps greatly with testing is that when you have code with lots of nested function calls you should try to refactor it into a flat, top level pipeline rather than a calling each function from inside its parent function. Luckily in clojure this is really easy to do with macros like -> and friends, and once you start embracing this approach you can enter a whole new world of transducers. What I mean by a top level pipeline is that for example instead of writing code like this: (defn remap-keys [data] ...some logic...) (defn process-data [data] (remap-keys (flatten data))) (defn get-data [] (let [data (http/get *url*)] (process-data data))) you should make each step its own pure function which receives and returns data, and join them all together at the top with a threading macro: (defn fetch-data [url] (http/get url)) (defn process-data [data] (flatten data)) (defn remap-keys [data] ...some logic...) (defn get-data [] (-> *url* fetch-data process-data remap-keys)) You code hasn't really changed, but now each function can be tested completely independently of the others, because each one is a pure data transform with no internal calls to any of your other functions. You can use the repl to run each step one at a time and in doing so also capture some mock data to use for your tests! Additionally you could make an e2e tests pipeline which runs the same code as get-data but just starts with a different URL, however I would not advise doing this in most cases, and prefer to pass it as a parameter (or at least dynamic var) when feasible.

One thing Component taught me was to think of the entire system like an Object. Specifically, there is state that needs to be managed. So I suggest you think about -main as initializing your system state. Your system needs an http client, so initialize it before you do anything else

ADVERTISEMENT

Learning needs analysis of collaborative e-classes in semi-formal settings: The REVIT exampl

Thinking in Multimedia: Research-Based Tips on Designing and Using Interactive Multimedia Curricula.

Instructional Design Strategies for Intensive Online Courses: An Objectivist-Constructivist Blended Approach

The Importance of Interaction in Web-Based Education: A Program-level Case Study of Online MBA Courses

How To Create A Mobile App in 10 Easy Steps

Older adult learning environment preferences

format in which these materials are available to students, then, has an impact on students' willingness to access and use materials,

Holographic computing made possible

“The ADDIE model consists of five steps: analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation. It is a strategic plan for course design and may serve as a blueprint to design IL assignments and various other instructional activities.”

CREATE Overview

Six Steps to Personalize Learning

Towards teaching as design: Exploring the interplay between full-lifecycle learning design tooling and Teacher Professional Development.

The Moodle project

Learning Design Process

Learning Needs Analysis of Collaborative E-Classes in Semi-Formal Settings: The REVIT Example.

Rob Pike has described Plan 9 as "an argument" for simplicity and clarity, while others have described it as "UNIX, only moreso."

Slow Design (Strauss & Fuad-Luke, 2009) celebrates slowness as an answer to critical issues in design, such as an often-perceived support to consumerism, a restrictive focus on functionalism, the diminishment of users’ engagement with materials, a lack of attention to local idiosyncrasies, and the need to think in the long-term.

Critical Instructional Design is new, and as such is grounded in the work of a very few people.

Designing for selfishness does not mean abandoning the group good.

Now an impoverished Marxist cultural critique suggests that such encounters between people, qua humans with richly diverse lives, are the very opposite of — or further, directly opposed by — the alienated encounters underwritten, if not compelled, by money. You see this kind of argument when people say “the ‘sharing economy’ is an oxymoron that has nothing to do with sharing because people are lending their underutilized resources for financial recompense.” However, what has always seemed to me most interesting about many ‘sharing economy’ platforms is not that they are spaces outside of commercialism, but rather ways of affording a re-embedding of economic exchanges in social relations within commercialism. When I ride-share or home-share, there might be money changing hands, but the actual experience of the ‘service’ is of two people (when there are face-to-face encounters) who cannot entirely withdraw into prescribed roles of employee and customer. This is why these ‘sharing economy’ experiences tend to be awkward, in ways that I have tried to argue are in fact deconstructive of the monolithically abstract idea of capitalism.These moments underline that there can be ‘sharing’ within economies, that relations between strangers do occur at levels or in ways beyond what is covered by their monetization. Service designing, it seems to me, is precisely the pursuit of these forms of sociality that exceed commercialism even within commercial interactions. This is the quality that a well-designed service encounter will manifest, a quality that will differentiate such a service from other less-designed ways of managing or engineering services.Service designers should therefore be expertly sensitive to these emergent and sometimes even resistant socialities. Designers should understand that at the very core of their practice is all that is concealed by excessively capitalistic perspectives: the hidden labor of informal economies; the emotional and aesthetic labor provision that service interactions compel from providers without adequate recompense; the satisfiers that make care work rewarding beyond their inequitable pay scales; the moments of delight involved in the comfort of strangers. All of these, it should be clear, are political, sensitivities that acknowledge oppression and exploitation via gender, race and class.All this is why service design is never just the design of this or that service, but part of the wider project of redesigning work and generating sustainable livelihoods. For instance, service design is not tangential to current debates about the roboticization of jobs. Service design is unavoidably involved in Transition Design, toward or away from meaningful work, or rather perhaps toward or away from quality ways of organizing the resourcing of new kinds of society.

Product designers tend to aim to create tools that should be appreciated in their own right for what they help accomplish — what the philosopher of technology, Albert Borgmann calls a focal thing. These well-designed products are valued for what they enable someone skilled to do with them. The service designer is less concerned with developing a refined product, valued for its versatility or finesse, and more concerned with a material means to an end, an enabler of a service interaction. This means that those products need to be more ‘alive’ to the needs of the participants in the service. They need to be less present in their own materiality, and more automated or responsive, directing the interactions between the service co-creators.This means that service designers must have a particularly acute sense of the agency of things. All designers understand the weak forces — affordances — that the forms of things exert on users in the appropriate contexts. For service designers, these forces must be more dynamically deployed because the point is less the products themselves and more the experiences they enable but even at times direct. Compared to a product that will be used regularly, and perhaps diversely, by an owner, the touchpoints that service designers design need to be more subservient to the overall experience. They should be more sensitive to a diversity of users and use cases on the one hand, but more focused on accomplishing just this or that transition in the service journey. This means that they tend to be more animated by intention than the artifacts conventionally produced by product designers. But paradoxically, this makes them less materially present as things. A product within a service pro-duces, leads forth, by being more of a sub-ject, something underlying the process, rather than an ob-ject, something jutting out with physical presence.

To accomplish these goals, service designers make use of the same power that all designers deploy and that are particular to design compared to other expert professions but that the history of non-service design has tended to ignore or fail to comprehend. Design is always the design of things, of useful things for people. To be useful, a thing must communicate or influence or force its users to interact in particular ways. You cannot design a tool that will accept any kind of input. So though modern designing has mostly focused on the design of physical products, the nature of the decisions that a designer makes about the forms (and contexts and systems) of things are completely driven by attempts to sculpt the social practices involved in using those things. I use this metaphor of sculpting to indicate that design is a process of removing materials to create the negative space to be filled by certain kinds of interactions.Service design’s focus on people-to-people coordinated interactions therefore emphasizes the obverse of artifact design. All service design is still in every case still design of things, or in the terminology of service design, touchpoints — products and environments, but also communications and interactive screens. Service design is just more oriented toward the sequences of interactions between people that can be afforded by a network of designed things.

Service design at its best is an expertise in forming how people interact without directly instructing them as to what to do to get paid. But precisely because what service design brings to service management is an attention to these other ways of inducing certain kinds and qualities of interactions, service design should begin with an acknowledgement of its baseline power, that which it should always seek to avoid enlisting to effect a design. This then is why I insist on calling this practice Service Design and not Design for Service.

Atomic Design details all that goes into creating and maintaining robust design systems, allowing you to roll out higher quality, more consistent UIs faster than ever before. This book introduces a methodology for thinking of our UIs as thoughtful hierarchies, discusses the qualities of effective pattern libraries, and showcases techniques to transform your team's design and development workflow.

Then I noticed, each of the records in his queue had a set of codes in the Salutation field. He explained that there wasn't a way to see the current status from this view of their system. So, to avoid having to open each record, he used the Salutation field (which wasn't really used in the system) to store his own personal status codes.

Once she finished, there was basically a cross-reference table of items that were actual business aspects and how they translated into the items required to use this system. In short, the last system that was delivered by the IT group required a change in the business process to use the application.

Without obtaining feedback from aspects of the entire user community, situations like those noted above are likely to exist. In each case, there were significant losses to the business from what was a bad application design.

Marcus Vitruvius, the classical Roman architect, defined architecture in proportion to the human body—an ideal building, as he saw it, had to reflect the ideal dimensions of a man. Today such anthropocentric design, indeed male-body centered design, seems irrelevant, perhaps even irresponsible, as the magnitude of our self-inflicted environmental disasters poses fundamental challenges to architects and designers. If the human body was the correct proportion for architecture for Vitruvius, what should the scale of design be that addresses today’s environmental challenges? Climatic change, species depletion, and oceanic pollution are worldwide problems. What is left of Vitruvius’s ideal of human reach has stretched to new global scales and millennial time frames. How can architecture conceptualize a planet on which humans have become involved in vast geological forces?

Surveillance studies have tracked a shift from discipline to control (Deleuze 1992; Haggerty and Ericson 2000; Lyon 2014) exemplified by the shift from monitoring confined populations (through technologies such as the panopticon) to using new technologies to keep track of mobile populations.

A promising approach that addresses some worker output issues examines the way that workers do their work rather than the output itself, using machine learning and/or visualization to predict the quality of a worker’s output from their behavior [119,120]

n the sections below, we survey and analyze the 12research focithat comprise our model. First, we consider the future of the work processesand how the workis organized and accomplished. Second, we consider the integration of crowd work and computation, including the symbiosis between human cognition, artificial intelligence(AI), and computationally-enabled crowd platforms. Finally, we consider crowd workers and how we can develop jobs, reputation systems, motivations, and incentives that will benefit them.

There is also a need for mechanisms to support transformations and processesover time, both for scientific data and scientific ideas. These mechanisms should not only help the user visualize but also express time and change.

By structuring design changes as exper-iments, these studies make credible causal claims about the relationship oforganizational structure and project outcomes that previous work struggledto establish. By intervening in real communities, these efforts achieve a levelof external validity that lab-based experiments cannot

The focus on details and delight can be traced to manifestos like Steve Krug’s Don’t Make Me Think, which propose a dogmatic adherence to cognitive obviousness and celebrates frictionless interaction as the ultimate design accomplishment. Users should never have to question an interface. Instead, designers should anticipate and cater to their needs: ”It doesn’t matter how many times I have to click, as long as each click is a mindless, unambiguous choice.15”A “mindless, unambiguous choice” is not without cultural, social and political context.

But addressing problematic internal culture of design teams is not enough. As an industry we must also confront the real-world socio-political outcomes of our practice. If we accept a code of conduct as necessary, we must also accept a code of outcomes as necessary. We must create ethical frameworks to evaluate our work at all stages, especially once it is alive in the world. Our lack of ongoing critical evaluation of our profession means that design continues to reinforce a harmful status quo, creating exploitable systems at the expense of societies.

It is critical that user experience design must begin to deconstruct the outcomes of our collective body of work, especially as tech becomes more embedded and less visible or more easily ignored. Saitta writes, “All infrastructure is political; indeed, one might better say that all politics is infrastructural; we ignore it at our peril.”

Beyond better design paradigms, designers must look beyond the field, toward practices that directly criticise or oppose their work. In particular, security research and user experience design have significant practice and goal overlap and this relationship is often antagonistic. Both fields primarily focus on the systems of wide-scale interactions between users and technology, but the goals of the two fields are diametrically opposed; design is to create the best possible experience for a user, security is to create the worst possible experience for an attacker. By focusing of the outcomes of the two fields, it’s clear that security research is a form of user experience design. Design should reciprocate, and become a form of security research.

Design is inherently political, but it is not inherently good. With few exceptions, the motivations of a design project are constrained by the encompassing platform or system first, and the experiences and values of its designers second. The result is designers working in a user hostile world, where even seemingly harmless platforms or features are exploited for state or interpersonal surveillance and violence.As people living in societies, we cannot be separated from our political contexts. However, design practitioners research and implement systems based on a process of abstracting their audience through user stories. A user story is “a very high-level definition of a requirement, containing just enough information so that the developers can produce a reasonable estimate of the effort to implement it23.” In most cases, user are grouped through shared financial or biographical data, by their chosen devices, or by their technical or cognitive abilities.When designing for the digital world, user stories ultimately determine what is or is not an acceptable area of human variation. The practice empowers designers and engineers to communicate via a common problem-focused language. But practicing design that views users through a politically-naive lens leaves practitioners blind to the potential weaponisation of their design. User-storied design abstracts an individual user from a person of lived experience to a collection of designer-defined generalisations. In this approach, their political and interpersonal experiences are also generalised or discarded, creating a shaky foundation that allows for assumptions to form from the biases of the design team. This is at odds with the personal lived experience of each user, and the complex interpersonal interactions that occur within a designed digital platform.When a design transitions from theoretical to tangible, individual user problems and motivations become part of a larger interpersonal and highly political human network, affecting communities in ways that we do not yet fully understand. In Infrastructural Games and Societal Play, Eleanor Saitta writes of the rolling anticipated and unanticipated consequences of systems design: “All intentionally-created systems have a set of things the designers consider part of the scope of what the system manages, but any nontrivial system has a broader set of impacts. Often, emergence takes the form of externalities — changes that impact people or domains beyond the designed scope of the system^24.” These are no doubt challenges in an empathetically designed system, but in the context of design homogeny, these problems cascade.In a talk entitled From User Focus to Participation Design, Andie Nordgren advocates for how participatory design is a step to developing empathy for users:“If we can’t get beyond ourselves and our [platforms] – even if we are thinking about the users – it’s hard to transfer our focus to where we actually need to be when designing for participation which is with the people in relation to each other25.”Through inclusion, participatory design extends a design team’s focus beyond the hypothetical or ideal user, considering the interactions between users and other stakeholders over user stories. When implemented with the aim of engaging a diverse range of users during a project, participatory design becomes more political by forcing teams to address weaponised design opportunities during all stages of the process.

‘Mindless and unambiguous’ is only true for those who have both the cultural context to effortlessly decode an interface, and the confidence that their comprehension is solid. Not only is this dogma an unreasonable constraint, it also frequently fails.

Weaponised design – a process that allows for harm of users within the defined bounds of a designed system – is faciliated by designers who are oblivious to the politics of digital infrastructure or consider their design practice output to be apolitical.

Nardi (1996) argues that one of the inherent strengths of Activity Theory is in its ability to capture the idea of context in user models for HCI, a notion that is gaining momentum particularly with respect to the ubiquitous computing paradigm and as its own design movement, so-called activity-centered design (Gay & Hembrooke, 2003). The world that Gay and Hembrooke envision relies upon design that is not user-centered (which is currently the dominant view in the HCI community) but activity-centered, since Activity Theory provides the right “orientation” for future classes of interactions mediated by ubiquitous computing devices.

The design principle of the Time Machinefollows the stage-based model of personal informatics systems proposed by Li, Dey and Forlizzi

Figure 2. The stage-based model of personal informatics systems (after [6]).

Figure 2: Basic demonstration of theinterior operationof the CIA device, which includedthe gear train system, rack and pinion system used for lubrication, rollers, and catheter like tubing.

How do we understand such mosaictime in terms of striving for balance? Temporal units are rarely single-purpose and their boundaries and dependencies are often implicit. What sociotemporal values should we be honoring? How can we account for time that fits on neither side of a scale? How might scholarship rethink balance or efficiency with different forms of accounting, with attention to institutions as well as individuals?

. When creating tools for schedulingandcoordination, it is crucial to provide ways for people to take into account not just the multiplicity of (potentially dissonant) rhythms [22, 46], but also the differential affective experiencesof time rendered by such rhythms.

Our rendering of porous time imagines a newperspective on time, in whichthe dominant temporal logic expandsbeyond ideals of control and mastery to include navigation(with or without conscious attention) of that which cannot be gridded or managed: the temporal trails, multiple interests, misaligned rhythms and expectations of others.

Yet, thepromise of social control affordedby information and communication technologies belies the inadequacy ofthe dominant temporal logic.

A close look at the ways that people continually navigate the expectations and rhythms of those around them reveals how much the rhetoric of time management and control, built on the assumption that one is a solo temporal agent,is a fiction.To be considered a success in various social arenas (either via internal assessment or external validation) means that individualsoften cannot choose whether or not to attend to certain temporal obligations.

Thinking abouttime as mosaic raises numerous questionsabout:when the mosaic is and is not obvious; what forms of interaction (or tiles) are given priority in any one moment; what skillsareneeded to engage in mosaic time with more or less effort; and what the effects of mosaic timeareon concentration, stress, and affect. Mosaic time appears mostsuccessful when people engage in attention switching in order to enact multiple social roles at once.

. Notably, this lack of predictability had large social, rather than individual, implications—a finding that strongly echoes prior CSCW research [1, 4, 13, 15, 20, 22, 34, 35, 36, 38, 45, 46, 59]

Aligned with chunk-able time is the assumption that each chunk of time, or its particular gridded arrangement, is allocated to a single purpose.

The expectation that time is chunk-able is conditioned by an understanding that time exists in units (a second, a minute, a year) and that temporal units are equal–that can be swapped and exchanged with relative ease.

A temporal logicoperatesat multiple levels. It is perpetuated insocialand cultural discourse; is embedded in institutional expectations and policies; drivesthe design and implementation of technologies;establishes resilient social norms; and provides a cache of normative, rational examples to draw on when individuals needtomake sense of their everyday engagements with time. When a tool like Microsoft Outlook is designed, presented, and justified in a marketing campaign it is both reflecting and perpetuating atemporal logic.

What would it look like to more explicitly acknowledge power dynamics in information and communication technologies? In the tradition of critical and reflective design [50], how might CSCW scholarship think about designing technologies that ‘protect’ users from temporal obligations and render messiness and disorganization a possible way of engaging with time?

Notably, a practice-oriented treatment of digital time does open up avenues for research and design, one that resonates with Kuutti and Bannon’s [23] recent account of a practice perspective forming a new paradigm for HCI. They propose that a central issue in a practice-based research agenda is the need to develop the capability to transform practices through technology. Essential to this is understanding the role of computer artefacts in the emergence and transfor-mation of practices, and the possibilities for influencing these by changing the artefacts themselves.

Consequently, efforts to design for temporal experience must do more than simply build desirable temporal models into technologies.

How can we design for time as collective and interdependent, rather than individualised on the one hand, or explicitly scheduled on the other? What does it mean to position collective time not as something that is achieved when people come together, but as a set of relationships through which they are connected? Both Sharma and Mazmanian and Erickson raise this challenge while highlighting the difficulty in addressing it; neither offer a solution.

A shared context is im-plicit here, but the ways in which rhythms that bind people are shaped has been pulled into sharper focus by Jackson et al. [21]. Picking up on Orlikowski and Yates’ position, theyargue that “distributed collective practices not only have rhythms, but in some fundamental sense are rhythms” [p. 247]. Rhythms shape collective action but are also shaped by it, and efforts to build them and to bring them into alignment are an essential part of collaborative work.

Wilk [57] has considered how routines come to be cultivated, observing that every day we are presented with opportuni-ties to “naturalize something new”, and turn events into the “precedents” of new routines [p. 151]. He argues that the decisions that surround the adoption of these routines are part of the process of their cultivation, in which uncon-scious habits are brought forward into consciousness, re-flection and discourse. Cultivation can be active or passive (routines may be actively initiated, or forced upon us), and is governed by “tacit rules” that reveal “how often things must be discussed before they can be done without discus-sion, how often things have to be repeated by agreement or with supervision before they can become an accepted part of shared daily routine” [p. 151].

Designing for an alternative temporal experience means understanding the ways in which multiple temporali-ties intersect, whether these frame a person’s working day, or allow a family to spend time together. While scheduling technologies do of course have a role to play here [see e.g. 31], many of the temporal structures that frame everyday life are not so much scheduled as unfold in a way that isunremarkable [54], or are so firmly established that they are no longer seen as alterable.

As noted by Zerubavel, “[t]ime is definitely one of the principles that can best allow us to establish and organ-ise priority in our lives as well as to symbolically display it” [59, p. 53].

The temporal experience is as much a product of the ways in which the technologies are used as it is a feature of their design. This points to how, just as has been argued for the case of clocks, digital technologies and practices have coevolved to underpin particular experiences of time.

sregarded. Temporal Design attempts to counteract these effects by drawing attention to social practices of time. Time is a social process, tacitly defined through everyday practices. It is rehearsed, learned, designed, created, storied, and made. This aspect however is often overlooked not only by designers, but also by society in general. Designers can have a key role in unlocking the hegemonic narratives that restrict cultural understandings of time and in opening up new ways of making, living and thinking

As the original visions for Slow Design and Slow Technology suggest, the world is comprised of multiple temporal expressions, which play important roles in our lives, even if disregarded within dominant accounts of what ti

The documentation of routines invited the students to reflect on the multiplicity of practices that shape temporality inside the school community, making the social layering of time more perceptible. Far from being restricted to timetables, buzzers and timed tasks, school time is a fusion of personal times, rhythms and temporal force

While the Printer Clock focused on emphasising the embodied and situated nature of time, pointing to the mesh of activities and characters that come together to create time, the TimeBots drew attention to personal rhythms and how they played out within the context of the classroom

e students. The TimeBots interacted with each other on a different level, revealing the subjective timescap

4.3.3 TimeBotsWhile the Printer Clock focused on emphasising the embodied and situated nature of time, pointing to the mesh of activities and characters that come together to create time, the TimeBots drew attention to personal rhythms and how they played out within the context of the classroom. The aim was to challenge the idea that the world is in a state of constant acceleration by inviting children to reflect on the multiple speeds of their day. In contrast to the slow movement, which assumes acceleration as a universalised condition and attempts to counteract this condition by promoting opportunities to slow down, the intention here was to invite the students to explore the variant speeds at which they l

ast. Moving from a quantitative time to a qualitative one, the Printer Clock tells time through the activities of others and the variety of pictures reveals the multiplicity of rhythms within that

Temporal Design could thereforeinvolve:•Identifying dominant narratives, including the forces and infrastructures that sustain them or which they help to support;•Challenging these narratives, e.g. by revealing more nuanced expressions of time;•Drawing attention to alternative temporalities, their dynamics and significance;•Exposing networks of temporalities, so as to illustrate multiplicity and variety.The approach would bring several benefits:•Acknowledging that slow and fast rhythms co-occur and are often interdependent would challenge the assumption of universal acceleration,•Acknowledging that the times of some are more invested in than others, would enable challenges to temporal inequalities.•Acknowledging that the natural world has multiple rhythms would change the assumption that ittherefore provides a stable background for human-made ‘progress’(McKibben, 2008

LARISSA PSCHETZ, MICHELLE BASTIAN, CHRIS SPEED 6With this in mind we propose Temporal Design as a shift within design towards a pluralist perspectiveon time. Temporal Design attempts to identify and challenge expressions of dominant narratives of time, as it recognises that everyday rhythms are composed of multiple temporalities, whichare defined by both direct and indirect factors. It also seeks to empower alternative notions that are neglected by these narratives. It suggests that designers should start looking at time as something that emerges in relation to a complexity of cultural, social, economicand political forces.Temporal designers wouldtherefore observe time in the social context, investigating beyond narratives of a universal time and linear progression, and beyond simple dichotomies of fast and slow. This is not to simply negate dominant notions but acknowledging that they co-exist with several other expressions in all aspects of life. There is a multiplicity of temporalities latent in the world. Designers can help to create tools that disclose them, also revealing the intricacies of temporal relationships and negotiations that take place across individuals, groups, and institutions. They would then consider a network of times that accommodates the multiplicity of temporalities in the everyday, the natural world, and in intersections between these re

Despite a clear social motivation, the alternative approaches to time in design described above have been constrained by dominant narratives of time. Further they have often only considered time in terms of pace, direction and flow rather than the more complex ways that it is involved in social life (e.g. Gre

Thus in developing a theoretical framework which could support an understanding of time as multiple, heterogeneous and deeply entangled within various social formations (which may be discrete or overlapping), work in the social sciences, particularly anthropology and sociology, has proven to be more useful. Such approaches enable us to ask different questions about what time is and how it works. Rather than seeing time as a flow between past, present and future (whether this be linear or nonlinear), it becomes possible to ask how time operates as a system for social collaboration (Sorokin and Merton 1937), how it legitimates some and ‘manages’ others (Greenhouse 1996), or how it works within systems of exclusion (Fabian 1983). We thus move from time as flow to time as s

tries (Prado 2013). Here again, instead of looking at the present as a heterogeneous context, the present isconsidered as uniform and following a linear trajectory toward

(Dunne, 1999). The call has influenced movements such as Critical Design (Dunne and Raby, 2001), Design Fictions (Bleecker, 2009) and Design for Debate (Dunne and Raby, 200

Design has also taken a critical approach to time in its attempt to anticipate the impacts of present actions in the future, particularly those concerning the introduction of new technologies. This attitude may be generally identified in particular design projects but is most evident in speculative design movements such as Design Fictions, Critical Design and Design for Debate.Since design is often focused on yet-to-exist interventions in a given context, it is often said to be invariably future-oriented (e.g. in Dunne & Rab

evices. Similarly, Phoebe Sengers (2011) reflects on the way slower attitudes could be promoted by ‘‘making fewer choices, accessing less information, making productivity less central, keeping our lives less under formal control’’; she further considers how this attitude could be reflected in the design of communication technologies. Instead of reinforcing dichotomies, Fullerton (2010) and Sengers (2011) draw attention to practices that emphasise alternative expressions

The association of alternative approaches to time with a rejection of technology reinforces dichotomies that do not reflect the way people relate to artefacts and systems (Wajcman 2015). As a result, these proposals not only risk being interpreted as nostalgic or backward looking, but also leave little space for integrating more complex accounts of time (particularly those arising in the social sciences) or for discussing more nuanced rhythms, as well as more complex forces and consequences related to temporal decisions. As a result, instead of challenging dominant accounts of time, these proposals arguably reinforce the overarching narrative of universalised acceler

gs done. Accepting an invitation for reflection inherent in the design means on the other hand that time willappear, i.e. we open up for time presence” (Hallnas & Redstrom 2001). A slow technology would not disappear, but would make its

In Slow Technology, Hallnas & Redstrom (2001) advance the need for a form of design that emphasises reflection, the amplification of environments, and the use of technologies that a) amplify the presence of time; b) stretch time and extend processes; and c) reveal an expression of presenttime as slow-paced. Important here is the concept of “time presence”: “when we use a thing as an efficient tool, time disappears, i.e. we get things done. Accepting an invitation for reflection inherent in the design means on the other hand that time willappear, i.e. we open up for time presence” (Hallnas & Redstrom 2001). A slow technology would not disappear, but would make its

There’s a great saying that is so true here – just because you know something doesn’t mean you understand it. I know that the sky is blue, but that doesn’t mean I can explain to you the science behind why. Students may be able to correctly answer 8 x 6 on a math test, but that doesn’t mean that they can also show you what 8 x 6 represents with a box of manipulatives or in a real life situation.

We are advocating the reverse: One starts with the end—the desired results (goals or standards)—and then derives the curriculum from the evidence of learning (performances) called for by the standard and the teaching needed to equip students to perform. T

We’ve run into roadblocks, and people really appreciate hearing about them because for the most part they’re running into the same issues

they can develop a action plan to communicate change

to embed their organizational aims in it

We designate a room. We’re like, “This is the sleeping room. If you want to fall asleep, we turn off the lights, and you just go to sleep there.” It runs from noon to noon.

In “Getting Real,” Barad proposes that “reality is sedimented out of the process ofmaking the world intelligible through certain practices and not others ...” (1998: 105). If,as Barad and other feminist researchers suggest, we are responsible for what exists, what isthe reality that current discourses and practices regarding new technologies makeintelligible, and what is excluded? To answer this question Barad argues that we need asimultaneous account of the relations of humans and nonhumansandof their asymmetriesand differences. This requires remembering that boundaries between humans and machinesare not naturally given but constructed, in particular historical ways and with particularsocial and material consequences. As Barad points out, boundaries are necessary for thecreation of meaning, and, for that very reason, are never innocent. Because the cuts impliedin boundary making are always agentially positioned rather than naturally occurring, andbecause boundaries have real consequences, she argues, “accountability is mandatory”(187). :We are responsible for the world in which we live not because it is an arbitraryconstruction of our choosing, but because it is sedimented out of particular practicesthat we have a role in shaping (1998: 102).The accountability involved is not, however, a matter of identifying authorship in anysimple sense, but rather a problem of understanding the effects of particular assemblages,and assessing the distributions, for better and worse, that they engender.

In her analysis ofcomputer-based work, Susanne Bødker (1991) has discussed the shifting movement of theinterface from object to connective medium. She observes that when unfamiliar, or at timesof trouble, the interface itselfbecomes the work’s object. At other times persons work asshe puts it ‘through the interface’, enacted as a transparent means of engagement with otherobjects of interest (for example, a text, or an interchange with colleagues).

Finally, the ‘smart’ machine's presentation of itself asthe always obliging, 'labor-saving device' erases any evidence of the labor involved in itsoperation "from bank personnel to software programmers to the third-world workers whoso often make the chips" (75).

Chasin poses the question (which I return to below) of how a change in our view ofobjects from passiveand outside the social could help to undo the subject/object binaryand all of its attendant orderings, including for example male/female, or mental/manua

One consequence of thisposition is a more radical understanding of the sense in whichmateriality is discursive (i.e., material phenomena are inseparable from theapparatuses of bodily production: matteremerges out of and includes as part of itsbeing the ongoing reconfiguring of boundaries), just as discursive practices arealways already material (i.e., they are ongoing material (re)configurings of theworld) (2003: 822).Brought back into the world oftechnology design, this intimate co-constitution ofconfigured materialities with configuring agencies clearly implies a very differentunderstanding of the ‘human-machine interface’.

The trope of configuration animates another study of surgical practices by MargunAanestad (2003), who focuses on the labors (carried out predominately by women)involved in aligning a complex sociotechnical environment for the conduct of so-called‘minimally invasive’ or ‘keyhole’ surgery. The latterrequires, among other things,displacing the direct gaze of the surgeon and attendant practitioners from the interior ofthe patient’s body– formerly achieved only through a correspondingly large incision– to aview mediated through camera and video monitors. Aanestad’s analysis follows thecourse of shifting interdependencies in the assemblage, as changes to existingarrangements necessitate further changes through what she names thein situwork of“design in configuration” (2). She emphasizes that, incontrast to views of technologydesign as the province of (predominately male) ‘inventors’ located in research anddevelopment labs, the ongoing work of design takes place in the worksite, and isaccomplished by actors rarely recognized as designers.. Moreover, her analysis makesclear again how in such a setting the capacity for action is relational, dynamic andcollective rather than inherent in specific network elements, and how the extension of thenetwork in turn intensifies network dependencies.

The feminist orientations of these studies add crucial sensibilities to thereconceptions of agency under development in STS more broadly. First, feministresearchdisplaces traditional preoccupations with abstracted and decontextualized formsofknowledge in favor of particular, specifically situated practices of knowing in action.Second, feminism directs attention always to the labors (particularly those previouslyignored) that are an essential and ongoing aspect ofsociotechnical assemblages and thecapacities for action that they enable. And finally, feminist research orients us not only torelations and symmetries among persons and things, but also to the politics of difference.The boundaries that constitute things as separate and different are treated not as pre-given, but as enacted, and practices of boundary-making and the enactment of differenceare inevitably political.

Medical ethics and accountability, sheargues, need to be founded not in thefigure of the rational, informed citizen but in theconditions for the maintenance of those crucial relations that configure identities andselves, and that might allow them to be reconfigured in desired ways.

its role in bringing archeologists’ perception into theservice of a particular organizational/bureaucratic endeavor, that is, professionalarchaeology.

A rich body ofempirical studies have further specified, elaborated, and deepened the senses in whichhuman agency is always inextricably tied to the specific sociomaterial arrangements ofwhich we are part.These studies provide compelling empirical demonstration of howcapacities for action can be reconceived on foundations quite different from those of anEnlightenment, humanist preoccupation with the individual actor living in a world ofseparate things. Insofar as we see the politics of technology to be based in fundamentalassumptions about where agency is located,and whose agencies matter, these approacheshave at least the potential to work as powerful allies to feminist projects. In particular,these scholars align with feminist theorizing in their emphasis on the always relationalcharacter of our capacities for action; the constructed nature of subjects and objects,resemblances and differences; and the corporeal grounds of knowing and action.

Must those not presentlyidentified as creative be shown in fact to be inventors in order tobe fully recognized? Thisquestion suggests that we need to pay close attention to the tensions and contradictionsthat arise when we adopt a strategy that distributes practices previously identifiedexclusively with certain people and places (for example, with privileged white menworking in elite institutions of science and technology) across a wider landscape (one thatincludes women). In distributing those practices more widely, they are givencorrespondingly greater presence. A counter project, therefore, is to question the valueplaced on innovation itself. The aim is to understand how a fascination with change andtransformation might not be universal, but rather specifically located and with particularpolitical consequences for women, both in termsof the possibilities that are available tothem, and the visibility of their already existing contributions.

Recent research on the actual work involved in putting technologies into usehighlights the mundane forms of inventive yet taken for granted labor, hidden in thebackground, that are necessary to the success of complex sociotechnical arrangements.

While not all of the authors and works cited would identify asfeminist, they share with feminist research– in my reading at least– a commitment tocritical, but also reconstructive engagement with received conceptions of the human, thetechnological and the relations between them.

we must not place the burden of safety on users in terms of who is responsible and who suffers the consequences

STRONG COMMUNITIES GIVE RISE TO MORE CONSENTFUL TECHNOLOGIESWhen attention is paid to relationships, stronger communities result. This is the case in physical communities as well as digital. Users and makers can strengthen their communities and improve consent therein by asking:• How can we better protect each other? For example, is there a technical way to have other community members see and respond to harassing messages, so the person who is targeted does not have to deal with the barrage alone?• How can we hold each other accountable as a community? What are some community-based strategies for addressing non-consensual actions that work on the roots of the issue?• How can we better support and uplift each other? How can we normalize asking for consent on our platform?Small changes can make a big difference when we add a little friction to pathways used for abusive behaviour, and when we make it easier for people to help each other. For example, new users might have a quieter voice until they’ve been around awhile, or messages mentioning you could be downvoted by your friends so you won’t see them.

Community accountability is a community-based strategy, rather than a police/prison-based strategy, to address violence within our communities. Community accountability is a process in which a community — a group of friends, a family, a church, a workplace, an apartment complex, a neighborhood, etc — work together to do the following things:• Create and affirm values & practices that resist abuse and oppression and encourage safety, support, and accountability• Develop sustainable strategies to address community members’ abusive behavior, creating a process for them to account for their actions and transform their behavior• Commit to ongoing development of all members of the community, and the community itself, to transform the political conditions that reinforce oppression and violence• Provide safety & support to community members who are violently targeted that respects their self-determination1What would a community accountability approach to digital communities look like?

Some people have called for police departments to become more knowledgeable about current technology, and for lawmakers to create harsher punishments for people who are committing violence online. But the problems with this approach mirror those that are rampant in enforcement of sexual assault laws.

We have found that asking people directly, as one would in a physical interaction, is a strong practice. How might your experience of the Internet shift if people who had access to your digital body, whether in the form of photos or contact information, were to check in with you from time to time about it? What technologies would we need to build to help us manage ongoing and direct consent processes?

Platforms like Google are incorporating periodic check-ins with users about what they’ve consented to, which is a good start.

If we can’t make it safer then we can acknowledge the remaining risks and educate users about them.

IDEAS FOR TECHNICAL MECHANISMSA technique called differential privacy1 provides a way to measure the likelihood of negative impact and also a way to introduce plausible deniability, which in many cases can dramatically reduce risk exposure for sensitive data.Modern encryption techniques allow a user’s information to be fully encrypted on their device, but using it becomes unwieldy. Balancing the levels of encryption is challenging, but can create strong safety guarantees. Homomorphic encryption2 can allow certain types of processing or aggregation to happen without needing to decrypt the data.Creating falsifiable security claims allows independent analysts to validate those claims, and invalidate them when they are compromised. For example, by using subresource integrity to lock the code on a web page, the browser will refuse to load any compromised code. By then publishing the code’s hash in an immutable location, any compromise of the page is detectable easily (and automatically, with a service worker or external monitor).Taken to their logical conclusion these techniques suggest building our applications in a more decentralized3 way, which not only provides a higher bar for security, but also helps with scaling: if everyone is sharing some of the processing, the servers can do less work. In this model your digital body is no longer spread throughout servers on the internet; instead the applications come to you and you directly control how they interact with your data.

We can do better. By designing the system so certain things are impossible, we lower the trust barrier for that system.

Non-technology folks can contribute to building consentful tech by:• Holding the platforms we use accountable to how they use our data• Advocating for consent-focused policy and legislation • Intervening in development processes through community organizing (petitions, demonstrations, etc.)• Signing on to platforms that are consentful • Learning more about code, policies, and legislationTech folks can contribute to building consentful tech by:• Advocating for diverse teams• Opening up design & development processes to people who those who are vulnerable to harm• Working towards a culture of consent in our companies and organizations• Mentoring newcomers, particularly those who are often excluded or marginalized from mainstream tech communities• Growing our knowledge on concepts like collaborative design processes and intersectionality • Consistently reviewing our development processes

Can people consent to Specific things in this system and not others? Can people select which aspects of their digital bodies they want to have exposed and have stored?

Are people Freely giving us their consent to access and store parts of their digital bodies? Can potentially harmful personal information about a person be displayed or stored without their consent? Does our system allow for Reversible consent? How easy is it for people to withdraw both their consent and their data?How are we fully and clearly Informing people about what they’re consenting to? Is important information about the risks a user might be exposed to buried in the fine print of the terms & conditions?How are we making sure that the consent is Enthusiastic? Is there an option not to use this technology, which means that people use it because they prefer to use it?

There are many ways to make technology more just and equitable, and consent is one important consideration. Non-consentful features and interactions can be minor nuisances for some people, but can be very harmful to others. When Facebook introduced photo tagging, anyone could tag you in a photo, whether or not you were okay with it. For some users, that could lead to embarrassment if the photo wasn’t particularly flattering. But for other people, the harm could be much more serious. For trans users, tagging photos from their pre-transition lives without their consent could lead to them being outed, which can have consequences for employment, housing, safety, and more.In response to user outcry, Facebook eventually implemented a process by which users can approve tagged photos. However, it required a critical mass of complaints to make this happen. And, Facebook still stores photos that are tagged with your face in its database, which informs its facial recognition algorithms. Whether you consented to being tagged or not, Facebook has a 98% accurate idea of what your face looks like.

With our digital bodies, there is also more to consent than a “yes” or “no.” As our physical bodies become increasingly interlinked with our digital bodies, harm can’t be prevented by trying to avoid technology. And harm can’t be justified because someone checked a box that said “I agree to these terms and conditions.”Instead, cases like those on the previous page point to a need for a cultural and technological shift in how we understand digital consent, as well as a political shift in how we advocate for control over our digital bodies. We want to offer up the idea of consentful technologies to help us move toward this. Consentful technologies are applications and spaces in which consent underlies all aspects, from the way they are developed, to how data is stored and accessed, to the way interactions happen between users.We use consentful instead of “consensual” because the latter implies a singular ask or interaction. Consentful technology is about a holistic and ongoing approach to consent

Mechanism design studies solution concepts for a class of private-information games. Leonid Hurwicz explains that 'in a design problem, the goal function is the main "given", while the mechanism is the unknown. Therefore, the design problem is the "inverse" of traditional economic theory, which is typically devoted to the analysis of the performance of a given mechanism.'[1] So, two distinguishing features of these games are: that a game "designer" chooses the game structure rather than inheriting one that the designer is interested in the game's outcome

How to Make a Mockup for Website?

Web Design & Development

17. SAY NO TO SPEC WORK Speculative work, or spec work, is a request by a potential client for uncompensated creative and design work at the inception of a project. Avoid this like the plague—it’s a devaluation of the entire design process and marginalizes our efforts as a whole. AIGA.org has great resources for dealing with spec work, including a sample letter that you can personalize and send to clients explaining why their request is unappreciated (see No. 19).

9. BUILD YOUR BOOK One piece of advice I give young designers looking to fill out their portfolios is to find the best local arts organization with the worst visual brand identity or website and make a trade. They get some great design work, and you get creative control and real-world projects in your book that other potential clients will recognize.

6. LEARN TO SAY ‘NO’ Some of your best design business decisions will ultimately be saying “no” to clients or projects. Unfortunately, it usually takes a few disasters to gain the experience to know when to walk away from an impending train wreck. Carefully measure the upsides of any project—creative control of your design work, long-term relationship-building and gross billing—versus the potential downsides—the devaluation of the creative process, being treated like a “vendor” and ongoing scope creep (where the volume of what you’re expected to deliver keeps expanding, while the schedule and budget don’t).

“The most important inspirations and influences in your life and career will come from places other than the design world. Get away from the design scene and cultivate other interests, skills, and experiences. Those are the things that will give you passion and distinguish you.”

“Almost any situation gets better when you ask yourself this: How can I be most useful right now? — Most useful to your employer, to your client, to the people you care for in your personal life, even to your future self. Asking ‘How can I be most useful right now?’ will get you past too little ambition, past too much ambition, past many interpersonal conflicts, boredom, frustration, and creative block. Sometimes the answer is ‘I can be most useful to everybody — including me — by leaving,’ but usually it’ll lead you to creating better work!”

“What did I know? I knew that relationships were critical in design. I knew that hard work was required. I knew that I needed inspiration beyond graphic design. “What did I not know? I didn’t know that time is forgiving. Saul Bass told me that success is defined by a series of successful projects over an extended period of time. I didn’t listen. I was convinced that every project was my last chance to succeed. Alternatively, each failure signaled the end of my career. Saul was right. Some projects were as ugly as something the cat coughed up, but the next one was better. And some projects were incredibly successful, and then the next one came along and it was left behind. The world isn’t black and white.”

“There’s a lyric from the song, Ooh La La by The Faces that says, ‘I wish that I knew what I know now, when I was younger.’ I think of this any time someone asks me what advice I would give young people just starting out. On the one hand, there are a thousand things that I’ve learned over the years that would have made my early professional life easier; things I know now. On the other hand, the great joy of life is learning and growing and making one’s own mistakes. I’d feel robbed if— when I was younger— someone had taken that away from me. “So my advice is to remember that success is a map of failures; Explore with courage. Draw the contours with grace.”

“Make sure to balance work and life. Without balance you may experience early career burn out or create undue emotional strain on yourself and the ones you love. “Connect with nature. Get out of your head and into your body. Nature reminds us to listen, think, and feel in ways that feed our intuition. “Travel. It enriches your life on every level. But there’s more to it because it takes us out of the context of what we know. It challenges us to exercise muscles that we don’t normally use. “There’s so much to learn from immersion in the unfamiliar. The benefit is a heightened sense of empathy and compassion — along with a sprinkling of humility. Chance invites spontaneity and play, which fuel creativity. Being open to chance — wherever you are — is a fearless act.”

“Work for things, and with people, you believe are good. Good work and good people attract more good. “Work outdoors. If you’re stuck, go outside and watch squirrels or take a walk. Take paper and a pen. “Give your own work devotion.”

“Talent is essential for success as a creative professional, but you also need mastery of current methodology and tools, excellent people skills, and business savvy to make your career sustainable over the long haul.”

“Never stop learning. Embrace what interests you and stay on top of it. Everything you need to know is a never-ending pursuit. It doesn’t stop when you are handed a degree or when you accept your first job. Keep taking classes. Find ways to mingle with other designers who do what you do. Actively research and discover what is out there and who is doing it really well. Ignite discussions with them. Share your passions with your colleagues, friends, spouse. Keep acting as your own teacher and play, practice, experiment and share. Above all else, stay curious and authentic.”

“Early on, if anyone had been able to tell me exactly the right thing, I would have dismissed it as preposterous because the world has just changed too much in unforeseen ways. “However, here’s my advice: get a second degree in something totally different— neuroscience, medicine, linguistics, or whatever feels right. “Design is what all humans do when they have intent and act upon it. Good design skills are most powerful when applied where they intersect with another discipline or two, or three. It is no longer enough to be a specialist only in design. Make your niche at those points of intersection, where future innovation will bloom.”

“Be interested in something besides design. It is invigorating to work with a designer that is passionate about what they do, but I am finding myself in too many conversations with designers that only know their field and nothing else. Read anything that you can. Know the classics for reference purposes, understand mythology, know how a steam engine works, how to change a bobbin, calculate compound interest, and why the North Star doesn’t move. “Yes, great design skills, knowledge, and draftsmanship are fundamental. It’s what you know beyond that world that allows you to conceive of a solution your fellow designers are oblivious to. Load your chamber with everything you can so when it’s your turn to take a shot, you have something to fire at the challenge besides surface.”

In website design, it was important to combine the interests of different stakeholders: marketing, branding, visual design, and usability. Marketing and branding people needed to enter the interactive world where usability was important. Usability people needed to take marketing, branding, and aesthetic needs into account when designing websites. User experience provided a platform to cover the interests of all stakeholders: making web sites easy to use, valuable, and effective for visitors. This is why several early user experience publications focus on website user experience

Resetting expectations. As corporate leaders become aware of the power of design, many view design thinking as a solution to all their woes. Designers, enjoying their new level of strategic influence, often reinforce that impression. When I worked with the entertainment company, I was part of that problem, primarily because my livelihood depended on selling design consulting. But design doesn’t solve all problems. It helps people and organizations cut through complexity. It’s great for innovation. It works extremely well for imagining the future. But it’s not the right set of tools for optimizing, streamlining, or otherwise operating a stable business. Additionally, even if expectations are set appropriately, they must be aligned around a realistic timeline—culture changes slowly in large organizations. An organizational focus on design offers unique opportunities for humanizing technology and for developing emotionally resonant products and services. Adopting this perspective isn’t easy. But doing so helps create a workplace where people want to be, one that responds quickly to changing business dynamics and empowers individual contributors. And because design is empathetic, it implicitly drives a more thoughtful, human approach to business.

Embracing risk. Transformative innovation is inherently risky. It involves inferences and leaps of faith; if something hasn’t been done before, there’s no way to guarantee its outcome. The philosopher Charles Peirce said that insights come to us “like a flash”—in an epiphany—making them difficult to rationalize or defend. Leaders need to create a culture that allows people to take chances and move forward without a complete, logical understanding of a problem. Our partners at the entertainment company were empowered to hire a design consultancy, and the organization recognized that the undertaking was no sure thing.

Several years ago, I consulted for a large entertainment company that had tucked design away in a select group of “creatives.” The company was excited about introducing technology into its theme parks and recognized that a successful visitor experience would hinge on good design. And so it became apparent that the entire organization needed to embrace design as a core competence. This shift is never an easy one. Like many organizations with entrenched cultures that have been successful for many years, the company faced several hurdles.

IBM and GE are hardly alone. Every established company that has moved from products to services, from hardware to software, or from physical to digital products needs to focus anew on user experience. Every established company that intends to globalize its business must invent processes that can adjust to different cultural contexts. And every established company that chooses to compete on innovation rather than efficiency must be able to define problems artfully and experiment its way to solutions.

Design thinking is an essential tool for simplifying and humanizing.

“There’s no longer any real distinction between business strategy and the design of the user experience,” said Bridget van Kralingen, the senior vice president of IBM Global Business Services, in a statement to the press. In November 2013 IBM opened a design studio in Austin, Texas—part of the company’s $100 million investment in building a massive design organization

the iterative process works at GE: “GE is moving away from a model of exhaustive product requirements. Teams learn what to do in the process of doing it, iterating, and pivoting.” Employees in every aspect of the business must realize that they can take social risks—putting forth half-baked ideas, for instance—without losing face or experiencing punitive repercussions.

Tolerate failure. A design culture is nurturing. It doesn’t encourage failure, but the iterative nature of the design process recognizes that it’s rare to get things right the first time. Apple is celebrated for its successes, but a little digging uncovers the Newton tablet, the Pippin gaming system, and the Copland operating system—products that didn’t fare so well. (Pippin and Copland were discontinued after only two years.) The company leverages failure as learning, viewing it as part of the cost of innovation.

In design-centric organizations, you’ll typically see prototypes of new ideas, new products, and new services scattered throughout offices and meeting rooms. Whereas diagrams such as customer journey maps explore the problem space, prototypes explore the solution space. They may be digital, physical, or diagrammatic, but in all cases they are a way to communicate ideas. The habit of publicly displaying rough prototypes hints at an open-minded culture, one that values exploration and experimentation over rule following.