Here is a note in the September-October 2017 issue of ACM Interactions. A central tenet of HCI, which I have heretofore embraced, is the importance of focusing on the relationship between the person and the machine, treating the person as the most important informant about his/her self. But is that still true when the human has little or no idea what the machine is inferring? HCI as it is will always be important, but it needs to change to help users be aware of the larger trace they might be leaving. We have a responsibility to help users see when they, as it were, have a smudge on their noses or, worse, are giving themselves a permanent Scarlet A!
Here is a video of Tatar’s March 22, 2017 speech at the Blacksburg March for Science:
It’s roughly five minutes long.
The Human-Centered Design track of the Graduate School and the Social Informatics area of the Center for Human-Computer Interaction are sponsoring a two day workshop on the future of human-computer interaction design on March 18 & 19. See http://peoplesysinfo.org for more information. As core participants in both, THIRD Lab members are active organizers and participants.
Click here to see an article about our Chem+C project in the VT News!
Here is a link to a three-minute video about the CHEM+C project. This video was made for public consumption, to convey the idea.
I had a letter to the editor in the book review section on Oct. 18, 2015 about the Jonathan Franzen review of Sherry Turkle’s new book:
Deborah will be teaching a 6000-level class this Spring (2016) on Designing to Change Power and Authority.
This is the description:
Why build a system unless there is something that you want to do differently? Computer Scientists build systems to change things in the world. But as computer systems touch more and more aspects of life, it is not just all about efficiency. It’s very easy to design systems that get users to interact with computers in a way that satisfies some set of narrow goals, but the cost may be that we are constrained and even bullied by our systems. As recently 1994, Howard Rheingold claimed that the “internet promotes democracy,” yet the ensuing 20+ years have begun to reveal more complex patterns, starting with the observation that we must be concerned now not with “the” internet, but with “this” internet [Dourish, 2015]. In a recent New York Times op-ed, Robert Reich (Former Secretary of Labor under President Clinton) notes that “while in 2001, the top 10 websites accounted for 31 percent of all page views in America, by 2010 the top 10 accounted for 75 percent” [Reich, NYT, 9/18/15]. Likewise, “Amazon is now the first stop for almost a third of all American consumers seeking to purchase anything.” As Reich goes on to say, “Talk about power.”
But the power of computer technology in society does not just lie at these institutional levels. It also lies in the ways that habitual practices in design result in the creation of computational systems that demand and reinforce ritualized behavior in the users. We can and ought to design differently! We can design to promote equity, inclusion, and freedom of action.
This project-based class designs and implements, taking into consideration such current movements as participatory design, critical design, adversarial design, feminist design, as well as Dr. Tatar’s own understanding of the challenges that face the knowledge society in the next ten years. We will design systems to promote equity and inclusion, and we will inform our design activity with (1) an understanding of who and how people are currently marginalized and (2) design propositions about what we can do differently.
New blog post on Critical Theory and HCI-Design Research: