1  

Today,  technology  is  everywhere  and  shapes  the  way  we  experience  our  lives,  the  world  and  each  other.    However,  what  remains  o;en  underes<mated  is  our  agency  and  responsibility  in  the  way  we  shape  technologies  too  Designers  of  new  technologies  have  an  important  responsibility  in  this  respect,  as  they  have  become  very  powerful  in  determining  (either  consciously  or  unconsciously)  the  future  uses  and  impact  of  the  latest  digital  opportuni<es.      Related  to  the  responsibility  of  designers,  the  domain  of  Human-­‐Computer  Interac<on  (HCI)  has  known  a  shi;  in  focus  from  researching  what  is  technically  feasible  towards  a  thorough  considera<on  of  what  is  desirable.      

2  

THREE  MAJOR  INTELLECTUAL  VIRTUES  ,  also  referred  to  as  three  genera<ons  or  waves  of  HCI  research  These  waves  have  never  replaced  one  another,  they  tend  to  co-­‐exist  or  some<mes  even  overlap,  but  the  rhetoric  will  help  to  describe  how  HCI  has  known  a  shi;  from  researching  what  is  technically  feasible  towards  a  thorough  considera<on  of  what  is  desirable  First  wave:  ra<onal  theories  provided  the  body  of  predic<ve  and  prescrip<ve  knowledge  to  inform  the  design  of  technologies  that  would  account  for  people’s  cogni<ve  shortcomings  when  performing  func<onal  tasks  with  computers.  These  perspec<ves  were  mainly  based  on  the  no<on  that  there  is  a  dominant  interpreta<on  for  an  interac<ve  system,  typically  the  one  explicitly  advocated  by  its  designer.  End  user  =  Human  factor  Second  wave:  technological  evolu<ons  have  opened  opportuni<es  for  a  wide  variety  of  uses  that  gradually  had  less  to  do  with  computa<on  and  individual  produc<vity  and  more  to  issues  of  communica<on  and  collabora<on.  It  was  acknowledged  that  “computa<on  is  part  of  a  richer  fabric  of  rela<onships  between  people,  ins<tu<ons,  and  prac<ces”    End  user  =  human  actor.    Social  sciences  research  provided  descrip<ve  accounts  of  the  situated  ac<on  i.e.  The  people’s  everyday  prac<ces  in  which  the  dynamic  interac<ons  with  technologies  unfold.    Third  wave:    1)  more  focused  on  the  experien<al  and  value-­‐led  aspects  of  technology  use,  extending  the  previously  

mainstream  pragma<c  concerns.  For  instance,  it  is  increasingly  being  ques<oned  how  technology  can  play  a  role  in  pursuing  healthier,  more  meaningful  and  more  enjoyable  lifestyles.    

2)  Moreover,  the  complexity  of  today’s  technologies  means  that  designers  can  never  an<cipate  all  future  uses  and  hence,  users  are  given  a  more  prominent  role  in  shaping  the  technological  environments  in  response  to  emerging  needs.  Contemporary  HCI  research  is  therefore  no  longer  concerned  with  developing  systems  that  convey  a  single,  specific  meaning.  Contrarily,  the  advent  of  a  third  wave  in  HCI  research  emerged  from  the  premise  that  several  interpreta<ons  of  a  system  may  co-­‐exist,  that  the  users  can  define  their  own  meaning  for  them,  and  that  these  interpreta<ons  can  shi;  through  use  or  vary  among  different  people  or  in  different  usage  contexts.  i.e.  interpre9vely  flexibility  –  i.e.  the  variety  of  interpreta<ons  of  a  system  besides  the  one  intended  by  its  designers    

 

3  

 In  what  follows,  we  will  exemplify  what  value-­‐sensi<ve  design  may  imply  when  designing  for  privacy.  

4  

Privacy  –  calculus  model  =  all  related  to  these  privacy  dilemma’s    RISK:  Protec<on  of  privacy  -­‐  avoidance  of  risks  RETURN:  Benefits  derived  from  sharing  personal  data  

The  privacy  calculus  model  helps  us  to  understand  the  trade-­‐offs  that  users  make  when  deciding  upon  the  use  of  personal  data,  and  more  par<cularly  to  understand  how  people  compare  the  advantages  of  disclosing  personal  informa<on,  like  improved  well-­‐being,  with  the  observed  risks,  like  misuses  of  the  personal  informa<on.    But,  not  everybody  is  the  same  in  adhering  to  the  no<on  of  privacy  and  how  they  make  the  trade-­‐off  between  perceived  risks  and  benefits    

5  

The  privacy  concerns  people  have,  are  not  necessarily  about  the  informa<on  itself,  but  rather  about  what  others  can  do  with  it  and  whether  we  can  control  who  has  access  to  what  informa<on  !  

6  

We  see  that    there  are  various  audiences  that  we  have  to  account  for.    The  challenges  involved  become  especially  prevalent  in  considering  todays  trend  of  Quan<fied  Self  applica<ons  Fitbit    Jawbone,  Bodymedia,  Omron,  Nike+,  Moves,  etc.—  we  may  not  forget  to  consider  the  self  as  an  important  audience  too.      Digital  possessions  of  personal  data  become  primarily  important  for  personal  monitoring,  detec<on  and  reflec<on.  This  goes  with  several  challenges  in  managing  the  content,  e.g.  for  self-­‐representa<on  (what  you  want  to  share  to  others  at  this  moment?),  as  an  archive  and  exhibi<on  (reconsidering  past  data,  forming  a  long-­‐term  iden<ty  which  may  be  exposed  to  others),  or  as  content  that  has  to  remain  totally  private,  and  that  is  only  related  to  the  self  as  an  audience.  Note  that  these  privacy  zones  will  gra<fy  the  needs  of  different  personal  values  such  as  reminiscing  and  reflec<ng  as  opposed  to  public  values  such  as  self-­‐representa<on      =  referring  to  tensions  within  the  end-­‐users  (at  an  individual  level)    However  tensions  may  also  exist  BETWEEN  stakeholders,  e.g.  between  what  people  find  important  versus  what  the  designers  or  social  media  plalorm  owners  find  important!  

7  

Privacy  can  also  be  considered  as  an  economic  good,  e.g.  sold  to  adver<sers  who  can  then  show  more  targeted  via  your  social  media  plalorm  Technologies  can  leverage  or  remediate  value  conflicts  Note  that  there  is  a  complex  interplay  between  values,  see  example  on  the  slide  how  privacy  concerns  relate  to  aspects  of  trust    

8  

Why  we:  cf.  not  only  the  designers,  cf.  interpreta<vely  flexibility    à  meanings  of  technology  use  may  change  over  <me  .  Designers  cannot  an<cipate  all  possible  uses  in  advance,  it  has  become  more  common  that  they  provide  a  ‘toolbox’  which  will  be  filled  through  the  ac<vi<es  of  various  connected  people  (cf.  blogs,  social  media,  web  2.0  applica<ons)  

9  

Note  however,  that  this  is  only  a  very  brief  summary  of  the  value-­‐sensi<ve  design  approach,  it  involves  more  research  steps  and  itera<ons  

10  

Why  par<cipatory  and  more  crea<ve  techniques?  For  moral  reasons  The  empowerment  of  the  user  is  likely  to  destabilize  exis<ng  power  structures,  giving  voice  to  people  who  are  typically  not  consulted  in  research  prac<ces  (e.g.  people  with  specific  health  or  emo<onal  needs  For  prac9cal  reasons    because  the  type  of  tacit  knowledge  studied  is  o;en  hard  to  verbalize  These  par<cipatory  design  prac<ces  establish  ways  to  bring  the  more  unconscious  aspects  of  our  lives  to  conscious  awareness,  and  hence  available  for  conscious  decision  making.    The  stakeholders  are  considered  as  an  essen<al  source  of  meaningful  and  fundamental  informa<on  for  design    

11  

12