Twitter. November 2023. Page Version ID: 1187856185. URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter (visited on 2023-12-01).
This links is to a Wikipedia article talking about the app X. It talks about what users can do on the app, where the app originated, and about the history of the app and how it was formerly known and Twitter, and the original name of X was actually Twttr.
Can you think of an example of pernicious ignorance in social media interaction? What’s something that we might often prefer to overlook when deciding what is important?
I think that when influencers post brand deals/ promotions about a product when they don't actually like it can be an example of pernicious ignorance as they are spreading misinformation online for people to believe.
Steven Tweedie. This disturbing image of a Chinese worker with close to 100 iPhones reveals how App Store rankings can be manipulated. February 2015. URL: https://www.businessinsider.com/photo-shows-how-fake-app-store-rankings-are-made-2015-2 (visited on 2024-03-07).
The article explains that this women was faking app store ratings and downloads. This reminds me of how bots manipulate ratings, but in this case it’s being done manually in real life. I find it surprising that she would go so far and buy 100+ iphones just to do this.
Some bots are intended to be helpful, using automation to make tasks easier for others or to provide information, such as: Auto caption: https://twitter.com/headlinerclip [c3] Vaccine progress: https://twitter.com/vax_progress [c4] Blocking groups of people: https://twitter.com/blockpartyapp_ [c5] Social Media managing programs that help people schedule and coordinate posts Delete old tweets: https://tweetdelete.net/ [c6] See a new photo of a red panda every hour: https://twitter.com/RedPandaEveryHr [c7] Bots might have significant limits on how helpful they are, such as tech support bots you might have had frustrating experiences with on various websites.
I think that bots are more versatile than I originally thought, I thought social media bots were just fake followers/ fake people on social media but bots are more than that and they can do a lot more than I thought
How often do you hear phrases like “social media isn’t real life”?
I hear phrases like this a lot because on social media people appear to have a “perfect” or put-together life, and it can cause many people to compare themselves unfairly. Most users only share highlights, such as vacations, achievements, or carefully edited moments, while leaving out struggles or everyday challenges. This creates a distorted version of reality that is not fully authentic. Because of this, phrases like “social media isn’t real life” serve as a reminder that what is seen online is often curated, not a complete picture of someone’s life.
There are absolute moral rules and duties to follow (regardless of the consequences). They can be deduced by reasoning about the objective reality.
I find the moral rules ethics framework interesting because the creators of social media do not always prioritize moral ethics, especially when profit, engagement, and growth are their main goals. While deontology emphasizes following universal rules of right and wrong, platforms often design algorithms that reward attention rather than ethical behavior. This creates a gap between what should be done (promoting truthful, respectful content) and what is actually done (amplifying sensational or harmful posts for engagement).
User control and freedom is the principle that people will take many paths through an interface (not always the intended ones), and so wherever they end up, they should be able to return to where they came from or change their mind. The notions of “Cancel” and “Undo” are the best examples of user control and freedom: they allow users to change their mind if they ended up in a state they didn’t want to be in. The dialog below is a major violation of this principle; it gives all of the power to the computer:
I agree. The lack of options like Cancel or Undo removes the user’s ability to backtrack or correct mistakes, which can lead to frustration and a feeling of helplessness. Interfaces should empower users, not trap them into unintended actions.
The same applies if a participant asks you questions: you can’t answer them, because you wouldn’t normally be there to help. The design should do the teaching.
I agree with not answering questions on a low fidelity design, I think this is a really important task to follow because like the chapter says, you won't be there to help the user.
The Google search page actually accepts many other implicit inputs too. There are a variety of personalization settings, such as search history, search preferences, and even sensor input (such as your location) that it also accepts as input. The user interface doesn’t provide explicit controls for providing this input, but it is user input nonetheless. These implicit inputs contain issues of justice. For example, what harms may come by Google tracking your location when you search? For many, no harm, but what about people do not secure their accounts, and might be stalked by a violent ex, or someone in witness protection?
I agree those hidden inputs, like location tracking, can be a big deal. Sure, they make things more convenient, but for people in dangerous situations, they can actually be harmful. Everyone should have a clear say in how their info is used and be able to easily manage those settings.
The fastest and easiest form of prototype is a sketch, which is a low-fidelity prototype that’s created by hand. See the drawing at the top of this page? That’s a sketch. Get good at using your hands to draw things that you want to create so that you can see them, communicate them, and evaluate them. With enough skill, people can sketch anything, and they almost always do it faster than in any other media. On the other hand, because they have the least detail of any prototype (making them low-fidelity), they’re most useful at the beginning of a design process.
I agree, sketches are definitely the quickest and easiest way to get ideas out. They're super helpful in the early stages because you can draw something up fast and see if it makes sense. Even though they’re not super detailed, they’re great for sharing ideas and getting feedback quickly. I also think that as a visual learner they are super useful to visualize the design.
User experiences can be evaluated with qualitative and/or quantitative measures. Your decision of qualitative and/or quantitative presentation of your findings may depend on the type of data captured, who will be viewing your research, and whether qualitative or quantitative data will be easier to understand.
I agree, when studying user experiences, you can use numbers to spot patterns or personal stories to understand how people really feel. The best approach depends on what kind of data you gather and who you're sharing it with. Whether it's charts or quotes, the goal is to make your findings easy to understand and meaningful to your audience.
An example of a contrast effect can be seen in a Pew Research Center poll conducted in October 2003, a dozen years before same-sex marriage was legalized in the U.S. That poll found that people were more likely to favor allowing gays and lesbians to enter into legal agreements that give them the same rights as married couples when this question was asked after one about whether they favored or opposed allowing gays and lesbians to marry (45% favored legal agreements when asked after the marriage question, but 37% favored legal agreements without the immediate preceding context of a question about same-sex marriage). Responses to the question about same-sex marriage, meanwhile, were not significantly affected by its placement before or after the legal agreements question.
I agree this example shows how much the way a question is asked can shape how people respond. When people hear a more intense option first, such as same sex marriage, they may see legal agreements as a more acceptable or reasonable choice. It’s interesting how opinions can shift just based on the order of the questions, even if we do not notice it.
There are several things to notice about the exchange above. It’s respectful, with each person listening and accepting what the other person is saying. It’s collaborative, with each person contributing knowledge to the conversation. It’s grounded in design rationale and design judgement, focusing on why choices are made and why different choices were made, and how that might effect the success of the solution.
I agree with this form of critique. I notice that when someone has prior knowledge about a certain design, they give more useful feedback back, and the sandwich method is something I learned as well and I think it's a great way to promote constructive criticism without being too harsh.
However, most societies do not value creative thinking and so our skills in generating ideas rapidly atrophies, as we do not practice it, and instead actively learn to suppress it1
I agree, I think that there was a point in society that has taught us to have a straight cut way of learning things and that has suppressed our creative side, but I also disagree because in our current society we are promoted to have creative hobbies, or ideas such as creative marketing ideas.
Some design scholars are skeptical about human-centered design because they don’t believe modeling and verifying people’s needs through a few focused encounters is sufficient to actually address people’s problems, or systems of activities1212 Norman, D. A. (2005). Human-centered design considered harmful. ACM interactions. . These and other critiques lead to a notion of participatory design 1010 Muller, M. J., & Kuhn, S. (1993). Participatory design. Communications of the ACM. , in which designers not only try to understand the problems of stakeholders, but recruiting stakeholders onto the design team as full participants of a design process. This way, the people you’re designing for are always represented throughout the design process. The key challenge of participatory design is finding stakeholders that can adequately represent a community’s needs, while also participating meaningfully in a design process.
I agree that just talking to people a few times isn’t enough to truly understand what they’re going through. I think bringing them into the design process as full partners is a better way to make sure their voices are heard the whole time. I agree it can be tough to find the right people, but it’s worth it if it means designing something that really helps.
Capturing these models of problems is essential in design contexts where designers are separate from stakeholders; the models can act as a form of boundary object22 Barrett, M., and Oborn, E. (2010). Boundary object use in cross-cultural software development teams. Human Relations. , helping designers work with other people, like developers, product managers, project managers, marketers, and others to understand who is being helped and why. But from a design justice perspective, one might wonder what the value of articulating a persona, scenario, or problem statement in words is. Wouldn’t everyone in the community you’re servicing understand these problems intuitively, from their lived experience? Even in a community, everyone is different: coming to agreement on who is being served, why they are being served, and what one believes is causing the problem, and how it impacts a particular group, is key to focusing design efforts.
I think this shows how important it is to recognize that even within a community, people have different experiences. I agree that putting problems into words helps everyone designers, developers, and the community get on the same page. It’s about respect and making sure the design truly fits the people it’s meant for.
hat means that problems are inherently tied to specific groups of people that wish their situation was different. Therefore, you can’t define a problem without being very explicit about whose problem you’re addressing. And this requires more than just choosing a particular category of people (“Children! Students! The elderly!”), which is fraught with harmful stereotypes. It requires taking quite seriously the question of who are you trying to help and why, and what kind of help do they really need? And if you haven’t talked to the people you’re trying to help, then how could you possibly know what their problems are, or how to help them with design?
I think that this is in important factor when it comes to design, I agree choosing more than just a particular category of people is important to truly get to know the type of people/problems your design affects in order to have the best design possible.
Given all of these skills, and the immense challenges of enacting them in ways that are just, inclusive, anti-sexist, anti-racist, and anti-ableist, how can one ever hope to learn to be a great designer? Ultimately, design requires practice. And specifically, deliberate practice33 Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Rmer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review. . You must design a lot with many stakeholders, in many contexts, and get a lot of feedback throughout.
I think being a great designer isn’t about being perfect it’s about showing up, learning through practice, listening deeply, and growing with others through every mistake and success.