5 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
    1. What is the relationship between design, power, and social justice? “Design justice” is an approach to design that is led by marginalized communities and that aims explicitly to challenge, rather than reproduce, structural inequalities. It has emerged from a growing community of designers in various fields who work closely with social movements and community-based organizations around the world.

      Alles wat niet wordt gedisciplineerd en gestructureerd door natuurwetenschappelijke wetmatigheden hangt samen met de menselijke creativiteit en behoeften. Van de inrichting van steden tot de inrichting van de maatschappij hebben we te maken met het ontwerpactiviteiten. De relatie tussen die inrichting en het gedrag van gebruikers waarvoor die inrichting is bedoeld is een vrij complexe. Of zoals Churchill het eens (1943) verwoordde:

      “We shape our buildings, thereafter they shape us.”

      Niet veel later (1967) werd een vergelijkbare uitspraak (ten onrechte) toegeschreven aan McLuhan:

      "We shape our tools, and thereafter our tools shape us."

      Degene die deze uitspraak deed, John Culkin, illusteerde dit aan de hand van de intrede van de auto

      Once we have created a car, for example, our society evolves to make the car normal, and our behavior adapts to accommodate this new normal.

      De wederkerige invloed (performativiteit) van al hetgeen de mens creëert (uiteenlopend van gebouwen en apparaten tot 'simme steden' en algoritmes) is een belangrijk om te begrijpen dat een ontwerp meer is dan kenmerk dat het gebruik bevorderd. Ontwerpkenmerken hebben blijkbaar wederkerig effect op het menselijk gedrag. Ze zetten niet alleen aan tot gedrag dat is bedoeld en wordt getriggerd door de affordances van het ontwerp: unieke relatie tussen de kenmerken van een ‘ding’ in samenhang met een gebruiker die beïnvloedt hoe dat ding wordt gebruikt. Een relatie die verder gaat dan een eenzijdige perception-action coupling.

      Met betrekking tot sociale media kunnen we bijvoorbeeld spreken van 'transactional media effects':

      "... outcomes of media use also influence media use. Transactional media-effects models consider media use and media effects as parts of a reciprocal over-time influence process, in which the media effect is also the cause of its change (Früh & Schönbach, 1982)."

      Het gegeven dat ontwerpers vaak alleen de positieve ervaring van gebruikers voor ogen hebben is volgens Danah Abdulla niet constructief.

      "...optimism in design is not always constructive. In fact, it hinders the politicization of designers. If design is going to contribute to tools that can change the world positively, it must begin to embrace pessimism."

  2. Jun 2020
  3. Feb 2017
    1. When dealing with technology, there are two dominant discourses that permeate research and practice: determinism and non-determinism. For the former discourse, ethics is only an issue for the designers of technology, because they determine what users should do; for the latter, ethics is only an issue for users, because they ultimately define what to do with technology. Both

      So determinism makes the designer responsible/hold accountable assuming they "determine" what users "should" do,

      while non-determinism absolves the designer leaving the burden of responsibility of the consequence of interactions, on the user. So non determinism assums that the embedded characteristics don't work on the user, or that he is able to resist their encouragement or discouragement. That he can shape the aspects of those certain characteristics than the other way around, thereby ultimately defining what to do with the technology.

    2. nteraction designers try to impose structures upon human action by shaping coercive environments where people are punished if they do things the “wrong way” and by hiding or not providing options for changing artifact adaptations. Interaction design mediates human agency and power, but if it does not provide choices for action, there is no room for ethics: people act based on conditions, not on considerations of what should be done.

      Point on reward & punishment feedback is a really good point, darkpatterns comes to mind.

      If IxD does not provide choices for action, there is no room for ethics: People act based on conditions, not on considerations of what should be done

      This reactive behaviour is what UX practioners of gamification feel proud to do. It's disgusting to see them feel proud doing it, how come they feel no remorse doing it?. I too will have to do it in the near future, but I won't fucking have a glitter in my eye and a wide smile across my face doing it.

    3. We argue that artifacts support human behavior by providing adaptations, but these adaptations can expand or restrict human actions.

      Those adaptations are also framed under the guise of fulfilling the prime objective of fulfilling the business needs, i.e to compete for market share, increase profit margins or simply, "Will this make "them" give "us" more money?. This objective is constrained to view humans in the identity of consumer. It is through this identity we derive the canvas of needs which our bosses and their bosses let us create adaptations.

      Many designers are limited to designing a set of adaptations in their artifacts by what markets signals as profitable. Those who are fortunate enough to work in non-profits or worker coops may have more freedom to resist the unethical demands of the market forces.