Download Questioning the Technological Panacea: Three Reflective Questions for Designers | English 28 and more Papers English Language in PDF only on Docsity!
Questioning the Technological Panacea: Three Reflective Questionsfor Designers
Abstract Many papers in the field of human-computer interactionbegin by presenting a problem and then propose asolution for that problem.
Despite the varied natures of
the problems these papers address, the solutionspresented are often implemented through the use ofcomputing technologies.
This paper argues that asking
whether or not a technological solution is appropriateshould be an explicit and exposed part of the designprocess.
It raises three questions that should be
addressed during the design process: Are there other,possibly non-technological, solutions that could addressthe problem equally well, if not better?
Are designers
creating solutions to problems that users themselves donot need to have?
Are these technological solutions
treating a problem rather than its cause?
This paper
uses examples from the literature to show how thesequestions might be answered, cases in which they wereat least partially addressed, and cases that show someof the possible results of not addressing thesequestions. Keywords Design, critique, non-technical problems
Eric Baumer Department of InformaticsUniversity of California, IrvineIrvine, CA 92697-3440 USAebaumer [at] ics.uci.edu Bill Tomlinson Department of InformaticsUniversity of California, IrvineIrvine, CA 92697-3440 USAwmt [at] uci.edu Copyright is held by the author/owner(s). CHI 2007, April 28 â May 3, 2007, San Jose, USAACM 1-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
ACM Classification Keywords H5.m.: Miscellaneous. Introduction Most trades have a specific set of tools particularlyamenable to solving the problems encountered in thattrade.
The doctor uses forceps, scalpel, and syringe; the architect uses draft paper, T-square, and Frenchcurve; the carpenter uses hammer, nail, and tapemeasure.
Tradespersons tend to have a high level of
familiarity and proficiency with those tools, allowingthem to determine which tools are most fit for whichsituation.
In computer science and related fields, the
focus is often placed on the development andimplementation of tools for other trades or disciplines.Examples include the use of computational models topredict weather patterns, or the use of CAD/CAM toolsin the development of mechanical engineeringcomponent. However, this situation downplays the factthat computer science is itself a discipline with its ownunique set of tools.
While the tools available to the
computer science researcher may be malleable enoughto assume different forms amenable to accomplishingmyriad varied tasks, they are not necessarily suited tosolving every possible problem.
Computational
applications have been developed to address social,educational, health related, mental, emotional, and ahost of other sorts of problems that do not obviouslycall for a technological solution.Although this trend pervades many areas withincomputer science, this paper focuses on the field ofhuman-computer interaction.
The purpose of this
paper is not to lament this trend; indeed, a field canoften be greatly advanced by pushing its boundaries.However, in the process of pushing disciplinary
boundaries, caution must be taken to ensure that theoneâs methods are still relevant to the problem areasbeing subsumed.
In particular, when technological
solutions are proposed for non-technological problems,it may behoove researchers to incorporate the followingquestions into their design process.
Note that it is not
necessary that the answer to each of these questionsbe âno.â
Rather, the purpose at hand is to raise
awareness of, and discussion about, these issues in thetechnology design community, as well as point to somepossible results of not addressing these questionsduring the design process. ^
Given a technological solution, are there other, possibly non-technological solutions that could addressthe same problem equally well, if not better? ^
Is the problem being addressed perceived as a problem by the proposed users, or is the situationbeing unnecessarily problematized by designers? ^
By focusing on a specific problem, is the solution treating a symptom and hiding the cause?This paper draws on recent research in human-computer interaction to show how researchers might goabout incorporating these questions into their work.The specific projects chosen are not meant to be all-inclusive, but rather are particularly relevant examplesof situations in which designers propose technologicalsolutions for non-technological problems.
These
examples were selected also because they are, tovarying degrees, well known in the communitysurrounding the CHI Conference and are examples ofresearch at the forefront of the field.
This paper is not
an argument that these examples, or the field as awhole, are lacking in some way or fundamentally
multimedia and multimodal systems to organize theirdomestic lives, the authors suggest some designimplications for developing ubiquitous computingsystems for organizing the home.
These suggestions in
and of themselves are perfectly reasonable, but onemust question whether ubiquitous computing systemswould be a necessary or even desirable addition to theenvironments studied.
Do the mothers studied or their
families feel that they need a computational system tohelp organize or control their lives?
It would seem,
based on Taylor and Swanâs study, that their subjectshave developed many ingenious lo-tech organizingsystems, such as Figure 2.
Furthermore, do the
subjects themselves see this as a problem that needs atechnological solution, or do they see it as a problem atall?
This patterns brings us to the next reflective question for technology designers. Problematization As technology designers, we tend to see nearly anysituation as one in which technological devices canhelp.
However, in our eagerness to develop the next great gadget, are we potentially trying to solveproblems where none exist?
Furthermore, by
attempting to create these technologies, are weproblematizing situations that users themselves do notsee as problematic?Of course, it is not always the situation that users knowthe range of possibilities that technology can bring to asituation, and users might not know that a technologyexists that could potentially help them.
It is not the
case that designers need to wait for users to tell themthat a new technology is needed.
With the coining of
the phrase âClic clac, merci Kodak,â amateurphotography was created, and users became aware of a
âneedâ they never knew they had [6]. Conversely,though, designers should not assume that technologywould be a welcome addition to any situation.As stated above, Taylor and Swan conclude their studywith a series of design implications for ubiquitouscomputing technologies intended to assist withorganizing systems in the home [13].
However, is it
unclear that the subjects of this study actually want orneed such technologies.
The authors argue that with
the research into âsmart homeâ technology, attentionshould be paid to the existing practices in the home.There is little contention here, as technologies thatignore existing practice are almost certainly bound forlimited success at best.
However, the question at hand
is whether, in designing these âsmart homeâtechnologies, designers are problematizing situationsthat are either unproblematic or are not seen asproblematic by users.
Did the mothers and families
who were subjects of the study see the organization oftheir domestic lives as a problem that needed to besolved?Another example of problematization can be seen inmany airports in developed countries.
Armed with
laptop, cell phone, and blackberry, the informationâroad warriorâ never has to worry about having awasted moment of downtime but can utilize every freeor otherwise unoccupied minute.
However, one might
ask if unused downtime is truly a problem?
Is it truly
crucial that you one be productive during the fourminutes while waiting on the platform for your nexttrain?
Using a cross-cultural study of techno-spiritual practices as a design inspiration, Bell [2] recentlyquestioned this value of constant connectivity andproductivity, asking if we might be better served by
Figure 2.
A lo-tech domestic
organizing system; each petal on the flower represents familymembersâ activities on differentdays of the week [13].
taking the occasional minutes of downtime to pauseand reflect on our day.
In creating always on, always
connected, always productive technologies, are weproblematizing the situation of idle downtime?
Beyond
just creating a problem where none previously existed,are we transforming potentially beneficial downtimeinto the problem of wasted time?Another example of problematization occurs in theticket2talk system [8].
Designed to be deployed at
academic conferences, ticket2talk includes RFID tagson the badges of attendees and an RFID reader placedbehind a coffee table during breaks.
When an attendee
approaches the coffee table, the system displaysinformation they volunteered about themselves, suchas affiliation, recent publications, favorite book, orhobbies, on a projection screen behind the coffee table.The goal is to provide attendees a âticket to talkâ to oneanother, hopefully breaking down some of the socialbarriers that might otherwise prevent fruitful exchangesand possible collaborations.
One wonders, though, if
there are truly extenuating circumstances that preventgood and important research from happening becausethe right people are not connecting, or is suchoccasional awkwardness just a normal part ofinteraction?
Does ticket2talkâs problematization of
social awkwardness turn an aspect of everyday socialexchange into a problem that must be solved,inadvertently exacerbating the problem it sought tomitigate and possibly distracting from the possible rootcauses of the problem?
This brings us to the third
question for designers of technology. Treating the Symptoms Attempting to address any sort of complex problem ismuch like the situation of a doctor attempting to
diagnose a patient.
The doctor must determine which
aspects of the patientâs condition are symptoms andwhich are causes. Treating the symptoms and notaddressing the root causes may not be the best way tohelp the patient improve. Similarly, it may be beneficialfor technology designers to ask whether the situationthey are attempting to address is actually the result ofa different, root cause.In the example of ticket2talk [8], one might want toconsider that some people are naturally introverted,and these introverted people often still manage to havequite successful careers.
In fact, being introverted has
its own set of benefits, and extroversion is certainly notalways a beneficial trait.
Furthermore, some social
situations are, by their nature, quite awkward.
Rather
than try to give these people technology to help thembecome more extroverted, rather than try to alleviatethe awkwardness of these situations, perhaps it mightbe more beneficial to address
why
such situations feel
awkward.
Is this awkwardness a function of certain
individualsâ neuroses, or is there something intrinsic tothe situation itself that makes it awkward?
Despite the
presence of a âticket to talk,â McCarthy et al. note thatthere is still a good deal of awkwardness betweenattendees, that there is not a dramatic increase insocial exchanges, and that a new set of arguably moreawkward situations and behaviors have emerged inticket2talkâs users.
This may due partially to the way in
which the system attempts to address a problemwithout addressing its root cause.
In this case, perhaps
the awkwardness is due more to the history, powerstructures, and career hierarchies at work in academicdisciplines.
Rather than simply attempt to decrease
social awkwardness, a technological intervention that
field to grow and develop, researchers should do sowith a reflective and self-critical eye to the effects thatresults from the expansion of their discipline.Specifically, this paper has advocated asking threequestions as part of the technology design process:why is the given technological solution better than anyother solution, technological or non?
in creating the
technology, are we problematizing a situation that isnot inherently problematic?
in addressing a potential
problem, does the technology effectively mask theunderlying causes of the problem?This paper has cited several instances of technologythat was intended to address non-tech problems, andthe literature contains many more. This does not meanthat that any of these projects, or that the body ofwork they represent, are fundamentally flawed in anyway.
All of the systems mentioned in this paper enjoyed some degree of success in addressing theproblems they confronted.
However, the above
examples also containing certain shortcomings.ticket2talk [8] was able to engender some socialexchange, but it also created new situations that werealmost as awkward as those it attempted to alleviate.Although the investigations on mothersâ work [13]points to some interesting and important aspects ofcurrent organizing systems in the home; however, theydo not question whether these mothers actually neededa technological organizing system, and the proposedtechnologies would support the division of domesticlabor rather than possibly questioning it.
While Miro
[12] inspired social and emotional reflection,
usersâ
reflections rarely dealt with the actual data beingvisualized.
Though ViTo [9] demonstrates the
capability to change usersâ behavior by suggestingalternatives, it may inadvertently and artificially
constrain usersâ behavior, and it likely would notencourage users to question the attitudes and beliefsthat lead to their television viewing and activitypatterns in the first place.Furthermore, the systems described here were not theonly possible solutions to the problems they sought toaddress.
For many of the examples given above, low-
tech or no-tech solutions could have also been pursued.Such non-technological solutions are almost certainlythe subject of publications in other areas of research.However, it is unlikely that papers about such researchwould be published at a conference like CHI.
Even the
name of the conference,
Computer
-Human Interaction,
carries a focus on technology, and its proceedings aresomewhat self-selecting in that regard towards papersthat describe novel technological developments.Furthermore, due to a bias against negative results, itis uncommon to see a user study or ethnographicinvestigation concluding that a technologicalintervention is either inappropriate, unnecessary, or notas effective as a non-technological one.
This is not to
say that low-tech solutions are preferable to high-techones.
Neither is it to say that technological tools are only fit for solving technological problems.
Innovative
adaptations of technology to address social,educational, emotional, cognitive, cultural, healthrelated, and other non-technological problems areamong the great successes of modern computing.
This
paper is not arguing that such innovative explorationsshould cease to be undertaken.
As depicted in figure 3,
there is a balance to be struck between theory,questioning the underlying assumptions and beliefs thatguide an implementation, and practice, developinginnovative implementations that explore a technologyâspractical boundaries.
Too much focus on questioning
Figure 3.
Leaning too strongly in
the direction of either theory orpractice can reduce a projectâsimpact.
assumptions without a focus on implementation candecrease the value of research, as it might not lead toan actual implemented project.
On the other hand, too
much focus on implementation without questioning theassumptions and beliefs guiding that implementationcan also decrease the implementationâs impact, as itmay solve a non-problem.
The most effective approach
leans neither too heavily in the direction of theorywithout practice nor practice without theory.
Many
implementation-focused papers in HCI tend to fall toofar to the right side of this graph, and the designquestions described in this paper are intended to pushthis research back towards the left and the apex of thecurve.Given any technological approach to a situation,alternate, non-technological solutions should beconsidered if we are to justify the expenditure ofresources, including human, monetary, and temporal,to create such technologies.
Furthermore, it has been
argued that by exposing design decisions that are madeand the reasons for pursuing a specific implementationcan help the research community come to a betterunderstanding of the design process behind suchtechnologies.
Pushing the limits of oneâs tools is an
important way to advance the field, but one must alsobe willing to reflect upon practice, as well as recognizeand admit when the available tools may not be themost well-suited to the problem at hand. Acknowledgements Thanks to Greg Elliott, Paul Dourish, David H. Nguyen,and many others for discussions and comments thathelped engender portions of the ideas presented in thispaper.
The authors also acknowledge the support of the Donald Bren School of Information and Computer
Science, the California Institute for Telecommunicationsand Information Technology (Calit2), and the EmulexCorporation for their support. References [1]
Student design competition. in CHI '06 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems,(2006). [2]
Bell, G., No More SMS from Jesus: Ubicomp, Religion and Techno-spiritual Practices. in 8thInternational Conference on Ubiquitous Computing(UbiComp 2006), (Orange County, CA, 2006),Springer-Verlag, 141-158. [3]
Consolvo, S., Everitt, K., Smith, I. and Landay, J.A., Design requirements for technologies thatencourage physical activity. in Proceedings of theSIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computingsystems, (Montréal, Québec, Canada, 2006), ACMPress. [4]
Critical Friends of Technology A social ecology of wireless technology. First Monday, 8 (8). [5]
Intille, S.S. A new research challenge: persuasive technology to motivate healthy aging. IEEETransactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine,8 (3). 235-257. [6]
Latour, B. Science in Action. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1987. [7]
Lin, J.L., Mamykina, L., Lindtner, S., Delajoux, G. and Strub, H.B., Fish'n'Steps: Encouraging PhysicalActivity with a Computer Game. in 8th InternationalConference on Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp 2006),(Orange County, CA, 2006), Springer, 261-278. [8]
McCarthy, J.F., McDonald, D.W., Soroczak, S., Nguyen, D.H. and Rashid, A.M., Augmenting the SocialSpace of an Academic Conference. in ACM Conferenceon Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW2004), (Chicago, IL, 2004), ACM Press, 39-48.
