3 ms·

I may come off as disagreeing but I question to understand. Do you have some tangible examples?

germinalphrase 10y ago
Accessibility is often offered as an example here. When we create a technology that requires certain abilities (the ability to use a qwerty keyboard, for instance) we have inadvertently made a technology that can't be utilized by people that lack that ability level. Likewise, for stairs, visual public signage, color use, etc. Other examples include accessibility not based on physical difference, but social or economic difference. If you can't afford a smart phone or other computer, it can become prohibitively difficult to apply for jobs (or seek services, etc.) that only accept online applications. Or - famously - the standard IQ test used to ask what color the keys on a piano were long ago. This test was used for employment, military services, etc.; however, that question was inadvertently biased towards middle/upper class people who had experience with musical instruments. These designs are not created with exclusion in mine, but there are often accessibility issues in one form or another because of our blind spots. Other times, we create designs that actively mimic our biases - for instance, a bias towards rationalism led the military to design airplane cockpits back in the 1930's+ around an "ideal standard" of human physiology without any adjustability. Because no one is actually average, once you get beyond a one or two physiological measurements (maybe), these cockpits didn't really fit anyone and many US pilots died unnecessarily because they couldn't properly operate the airplane. Once the military overcame that bias they were able to make cockpits that fit many more sizes/shapes of people and our pilot deaths dropped significantly.
dredmorbius 10y ago
From Michael and Joyce Heusemann, Techno-Fix (mentioned in a prior comment): "In addition to cost-effectiveness, efficiency and marketability, a wide range of other values are commonly embedded in many modern technologies. These are, for example, power, control, exploitation and violence, with respect to both people and nature (Chapter 3), profit-maximization, speed, mass-production, uniformity, repetitiveness, quantification, precision, standardization, dependency, materialism, consumerism and individualism.854 In general, the more specifically a technology has been designed for a particular use, the more completely it will embody the values of the designers, and the less it will be of use for purposes reflecting different values. Thus, the more specific the design, the less human choice and control there will be regarding the final use of the respective technology." The passage continues to quote Robert Proctor in Value-Free Science? Purity and Power in Modern Knowledge. To give another example, virtually the entire infrastrure of the modern Web and information technology system is oriented around the interests of advertisers, and against those of content creators. I'm typing this on a tablet which will faithfully suppor all requests by advertisers to cram their content, and surveillance requests, down my throat, but which routinely discards my own content (I've watched this comment disappear multiple times as I toggle to the book viewer application from which I'm pulling quotes). The tools for organising content of specific interest to me is exceptionally poor. Even putatively user-oriented systems such as GNU/Linux have been increasingly falling victim to this, a distressing trend that's been accellerating over my 20+ year use of it.
- marmot777 10y ago
  I get your point as some of the most articulate posts on here were by you and the others who responded on this topic. Wow, some passion behind this. Do you think it's ever political in the left, right, etc., since of the word? What's wrong with Linux? Are you referring to RHEL and things like that?
mcphage 10y ago
A simple example is, think of a car. Cars are uncomfortable for people who are very tall, or very short. Now, you may say, "it's pretty much impossible to design a car to fit everyone!" which is absolutely true—and that's my point. Car makers can't design a car that fits everyone comfortably, so the car maker has to decide—based on the tradeoffs of cost, complexity, and audience size—who to size the car for. Is it uncomfortable for people over 6'3"? Is it uncomfortable for people over 6'10"? That's where the creator's views creep in, and there's no way to avoid it. It's not the end of the world; decisions do need to be made, and we make do. We just need to recognize that technology reflects the biases of its creator, and take that into account when seeking to understand technology and its impact.

Accessibility is often offered as an example here. When we create a technology that requires certain abilities (the ability to use a qwerty keyboard, for instance) we have inadvertently made a technology that can't be utilized by people that lack that ability level. Likewise, for stairs, visual public signage, color use, etc. Other examples include accessibility not based on physical difference, but social or economic difference. If you can't afford a smart phone or other computer, it can become prohibitively difficult to apply for jobs (or seek services, etc.) that only accept online applications. Or - famously - the standard IQ test used to ask what color the keys on a piano were long ago. This test was used for employment, military services, etc.; however, that question was inadvertently biased towards middle/upper class people who had experience with musical instruments. These designs are not created with exclusion in mine, but there are often accessibility issues in one form or another because of our blind spots. Other times, we create designs that actively mimic our biases - for instance, a bias towards rationalism led the military to design airplane cockpits back in the 1930's+ around an "ideal standard" of human physiology without any adjustability. Because no one is actually average, once you get beyond a one or two physiological measurements (maybe), these cockpits didn't really fit anyone and many US pilots died unnecessarily because they couldn't properly operate the airplane. Once the military overcame that bias they were able to make cockpits that fit many more sizes/shapes of people and our pilot deaths dropped significantly.

dredmorbius 10y ago

From Michael and Joyce Heusemann, Techno-Fix (mentioned in a prior comment): "In addition to cost-effectiveness, efficiency and marketability, a wide range of other values are commonly embedded in many modern technologies. These are, for example, power, control, exploitation and violence, with respect to both people and nature (Chapter 3), profit-maximization, speed, mass-production, uniformity, repetitiveness, quantification, precision, standardization, dependency, materialism, consumerism and individualism.854 In general, the more specifically a technology has been designed for a particular use, the more completely it will embody the values of the designers, and the less it will be of use for purposes reflecting different values. Thus, the more specific the design, the less human choice and control there will be regarding the final use of the respective technology." The passage continues to quote Robert Proctor in Value-Free Science? Purity and Power in Modern Knowledge. To give another example, virtually the entire infrastrure of the modern Web and information technology system is oriented around the interests of advertisers, and against those of content creators. I'm typing this on a tablet which will faithfully suppor all requests by advertisers to cram their content, and surveillance requests, down my throat, but which routinely discards my own content (I've watched this comment disappear multiple times as I toggle to the book viewer application from which I'm pulling quotes). The tools for organising content of specific interest to me is exceptionally poor. Even putatively user-oriented systems such as GNU/Linux have been increasingly falling victim to this, a distressing trend that's been accellerating over my 20+ year use of it.

marmot777 10y ago
I get your point as some of the most articulate posts on here were by you and the others who responded on this topic. Wow, some passion behind this. Do you think it's ever political in the left, right, etc., since of the word? What's wrong with Linux? Are you referring to RHEL and things like that?

mcphage 10y ago

A simple example is, think of a car. Cars are uncomfortable for people who are very tall, or very short. Now, you may say, "it's pretty much impossible to design a car to fit everyone!" which is absolutely true—and that's my point. Car makers can't design a car that fits everyone comfortably, so the car maker has to decide—based on the tradeoffs of cost, complexity, and audience size—who to size the car for. Is it uncomfortable for people over 6'3"? Is it uncomfortable for people over 6'10"? That's where the creator's views creep in, and there's no way to avoid it. It's not the end of the world; decisions do need to be made, and we make do. We just need to recognize that technology reflects the biases of its creator, and take that into account when seeking to understand technology and its impact.