Just read a nice article discussing the importance of understanding what you design for and why. Even if the goal is to make people happier, healtier etc it is important to acknowledge the difference of supporting people by providing different options that fit their needs, as opposed to locking them into a solution that someone else decided to be "the" best (only) alternative.
Design can be enablers of more sustainable practices and also support reflective behaviour. By providing things that make people reflect on for example their use of water or garbage, they can start to see things and realize how their actions affect for example the overall waste care in their country. Then they may also change their behaviour, because they desire to do so, not because they are forced to. A bit like the Hans Rosling effect :-) When we get new perspectives that relate ourselves to a global world, we learn something about ourselves and we start to reflect. Then we can start to act.
This suggests the importance of separating beetween what is designed and the designers motivation behind the design. Even if the designer wants to save the world, the users have to get different enablers and alternatives and then decide what to do. At least if there is a humanistic perspective in the design? Supporting people to make sustainable choises (by providing such choices) is very different from forcing people into a specific solution. Moreover, sustanability is about a longlasting perspective, thus it must come from a human desire and motivation.
http://www.rioleo.org/a-worrying-trend-in-behavior-change-in-human-computer-interaction.php
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment