What’s Next? Ad-supported Apps in Cars?
Read the New York Times Article: Despite Risks, Internet Creeps Onto Car Dashboards
Beyond Privacy – the need for value sensitive design in social media
I’ve written previously about the need for a simple volume know-like control panel for controlling information we choose to share via various social platforms on the internet. The basic idea behind this approach is that notions of privacy vary and continue to evolve as personal and social norms and attitudes change. Therefore, it’s important to let individuals manage their own expectations of privacy. Responsible use of data is an empty promise if your users don’t feel confident about the ability to control the flow of their information in an easy and efficient manner. But privacy and control of data is not the only issue that’s causing consumer confusion and drawing the ire of advocates and lawmakers. It’s part of a much bigger issue that’s the source of a lot of the widespread concern about social media.
This core issue is the development and release of social platforms and new features that have the potential of impacting millions of individuals across the world with what appears to be little or no consideration paid to human values. Yes, new technologies are not necessarily value neutral. Batya Friedman and Peter H. Kahn, Jr. first shed light on this important issue in The human-computer interaction handbook.
According to Friedman and Kahn, there are three basic theories about biases in technology:
- The Embodied Theory — technologies reflect the biases of their inventors.
- The Exogenous Theory — biases emerge because of the way society shapes the use of such technologies (beyond the influence or control of the original designer).
- The Interactional Theory — biases in technology are partly caused by the original design (embodied theory) and the social impact (exogenous theory). Therefore, according this theory, biases in technology emerge because of the biases of the designer and those of the people using it. In addition, technologies themselves have the ability to shape individual and social behavior.
Value Sensitive design uses the Interactional theory, a tripartite methodology, and emphasis on direct and indirect stakeholders as an approach to designing technology that accounts for human values in a principled and comprehensive manner.
I’m not advocating a detailed research project before developing and launching every new social media system or feature, but here’s an illustrative list of 10 basic questions that should be asked:
- What is the intended business purpose of the system/ feature?
- What is the intended user-focused purpose of the system/feature?
- Are the current and potential business purposes made clear to the user?
- What are the potential uses of the system/feature?
- What is the potential impact (negative and positive) on direct stakeholders (the users) ?
- What is the potential impact (negative and positive) on indirect stakeholders (other parties that may be affected by the use of the system or feature)?
- What are the key issues involved? In other words, what human values are impacted (e.g. ownership and property, physical welfare, freedom from bias, universal usability, autonomy, privacy, security, etc.)?
- How can the system/feature balance competing values (e.g. cooperation vs. privacy)?
- How do users behave when using the system/feature?
- What information is provided by design and performance tests?
If you’re not prepared to ask and answer the above questions before finalizing the design of a social media system or feature (or for that matter any consumer-facing Internet-based product), you better at least have a good communications plan to deal with the PR backlash that will inevitably follow.
Technology becomes us — Heidegger meets Apple & Twitter
The Singularity is here! According to a new study, people have already fused with their computing tools. We are so entwined with the technology we use that they become part of our mind and bodily functions. The study conducted by Anthony Chemero, a cognitive scientist at Franklin & Marshall College was designed to test one of Heidegger’s fundamental philosophical concepts known as “ready to hand”.
This concept describes one way in which we interact with things in the world. According to Heidegger, when we’re engaged on a specific task, we tend to not be conscious of the actual separation between ourselves and the tools we employ to fulfill the task. In other words, you’re so focused on understanding the content of this post right now that you’re not thinking about the interface you’re using to access this blog, or the service that referred you to this page. However, the moment there is a disruption caused by the tools you’re using, which somehow impedes your ability to read this, you will experience cognitive disruption. Yes, that powerlessness and despair you feel when the YouTube video you’re viewing starts buffering is real. Further, the more such disruptions you are subjected to by digital technology, the greater the negative cognitive impact and consequently the reduction in the quality of your life.
That’s why reliable technology and user interface design that helps to lessen these disruptive forces is so important. Explains why Apple products are so popular and admired, right? They help us get things done with simplicity and ease. Maybe it can also help us understand why Twitter got so popular. The service is simple, takes minutes to sign up and start using it, and then all you have to do is type in less than 140 characters every time you want to share a thought, incident or observation with your friends or the world at large.
It helps you focus on exactly what you want to get done without any settings to be tweaked, privacy questions to be answered, and recipients to be identified or blocked. Just think and tweet. No disruptions! Well, unless this happens….
The Problem with Talking Refrigerators
According to a new report published by scientists Adam Waytz from Harvard University and Nicholas Epley and John T. Cacioppo from University of Chicago, humans have no difficulty identifying other humans in a biological sense, but from a psychological standpoint, things are a lot more complicated. Their report analyzes the psychology of anthropomorphism, which is basically our tendency to attribute human characteristics or behavior to non-human things. We express this tendency in a variety of ways, ranging from dressing up pets as people, attaching names to natural phenomenon, inanimate objects such as Roombas or for that matter, human-like gods.
According to the research carried out by Waytz and his colleagues, thinking of a non-human entity in human ways helps us not only feel more in control and connected to our environment, but also renders non-human objects and phenomenon worthy of moral care and consideration.
In other recent news, McKinsey recently released a report about “new sensor-driven business models” that the Internet of Things will bring. According to the report, we will soon see the emergence of Internet-enabled objects ranging from shoes to refrigerators that layer web services, which will help us interact with these objects. This will be made possible by technologies such as RFID tags and sensors, resulting in numerous new technological and social advances.
These two recent reports made me realize that it’s possible we’re at the precipice of a new wave of anthropomorphic computer interface design. We already spend so much time interacting with computing devices that are connected to the Internet, but imagine if objects all around us were also networked and interactive. In such a world, anthropomorphic human-computer interaction design may actually make things simpler and more intuitive for us. The use of anthropomorphic agents in human-computer interaction is fairly common, but has yielded varied results. On the plus side, they have the potential to trigger an emotional response from users, improve interactivity, engagement and thereby promote broad based adoption of computer technology. However, human-like agents can also be incredibly annoying (I’m thinking of Clippy, the Microsoft Office Assistant). 
Unfortunately, annoyance is not the biggest potential problem with human-like computer agents. As the research conducted by Waytz and co. has pointed out; imparting human-like qualities on inanimate objects illicit subconscious and psychological responses in humans. Although their research touches upon some of the positive psychological drivers for anthropomorphism, it does not delve into the responses that are evoked by actual human-like interfaces such as robots that simulate human appearance, expressions and gestures, or human-like interfaces in cars, websites, software programs and mobile devices. If anthropomorphism helps us interact and control inanimate objects with ease, what negative impacts can such human-like interfaces or objects have on us? This paper provides some very interesting insight into some of the privacy implications of anthropomorphic human-computer interaction design techniques. However, privacy will not be the only concern and such interfaces could have an impact on a range of human values from individuality, respect, empathy and trust to informed consent, authority and security. I really don’t mean to be a buzz-kill, but I think the “Internet of Things” could use some principles of value sensitive design. If we don’t identify, understand and anticipate the ethical and value concerns that are bound to arise from the deployment of networked objects that exhibit human-like behavior, we risk facing an avalanche of problems later.
So anyone out there working on building a smart, human-like refrigerator – I hope you’re paying attention.
