HUMAN VALUES AND THE DESIGN OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY EDITED BY BATYA FRIEDMAN Oigat SLI Publications BcaennseIntroduction. AYA FRIEDMAN Many of us when we design and implement compater technologies focus on Thakinga machine work relsbletcemly and corety Rarely do we fous “Gnfumun values Pehape webeleve nvale-netal technology. Perhaps we ‘aie tha iss of value belong only t ocala, philosophers. oF policy makers Nether elit correct tn heir work, system designers neces “Sy impart soil end mora vues, how? What values? Whose vale? Fr ifhurn vias ich fordom of pecch igh ta pogo. account {iy privcyand autonomy ~are controversial then on what bass do some “aluesoverrid others in he design oy. hardware algorithms and databs {Sr Moreorer, how can designer working within a corporate stature and Sha mandate to genetaterevenubringvole- sensitive design into the work piace “This volume rings together ding researchers nd sstem designers who take up these questions, and more. ahi intrducton, fst these ques tions within alae coneptal framework. 180 motivate the need oem brace vale-sentive design part the culture of computer ence. The ‘eran overview of ach ofthe chapters Roughly half the chapters ate ne Inari apd the remainder are eprint of otal tics fom recent ers For eer with peclze terest, able arangerbechaptersby technical tops Table by ore human vale DOES TECHNOLOGY HAVE VALUES? Doss technoligy have vale? Consider afew examples. Inthe e005 mis sonar intel technological innovation ~ steel ax heads =f the Yi Sovontof Australia, atv people The misionaries dds witout regard for teadionalestretions on nership, nd indsriminately dsributed the ax heads to men, women, ol people asd youngaduls aie Inso doing hey tered elatonships of dependence among fay members and reshaped con-ptions of property within the culture (Sharp 95/980), Another example ‘About Tou decades ago snowmobiles were inoduce into thet cm: itso he Arctic and have nol replaced travel dogleds. Tisch nological innovation thereby altered not only puters of transportation, but symbols ofsocl status and movedthe nut towardadependenceona money ‘conomy (Houston 1995: Peto. 179), Or computer example lectroni mall rarely duplaysthe sender status lsthe ender acuriou ay person syste a= ht fl profesor, journals asitant profesor entry evel programmer or scientist high school stadt? Who knows uti he eal read, ad raybe not eve then. Ths desig este (and astocsted conventions) has ‘thereby payeasignincan oem alowingetecroni communication 38 ‘wadional bieratcial boundaries and wo contribute othe estractaring of ‘organizations (Sproul Kies 199). The points this In various waystch- nological innovations donot stand apart om human values, Bu, sil what ‘vo ita to sy that technology ha ses? Endogenous and exogenous views have erg in een year. The en ognous view holhat rough the proces of igang and implementing technology the very meaning and intentions that we designes and builders bing to our tsk tray become a part ofthe technology (ek. Appadars, ‘98 Col, 299) But thi view ser faethe see that it impes mental ste to things which donot have the capac to ave them theca, for ‘example dha gu tel intends tol someone? That proposition eemsin correct. Alhough arguable it similarly sens incorrect o impute meatal States to computational stems In chapter Friedman snd Kal dco ‘his postion n more det tn contest the exogenous view hol that values reside with the wes othe technology Proponents ofthis view ae likely o say “guns don kil people people doo sina, "hammers dou't pound ‘ais, people do computer databses don't track workers people do” But this view ignores our everyday experience tat purtclar tol lend them selves to particular taksin particle way others on tol would sere all rposes well nd we kno thie snot the case, Try pounding nal with a compute database ' thin view - which thinks correct olds that the way people desig tools makes the tol mote stable for some uses over thes Shee (951) sugges for example tht a hammer wl ute or diving nal, poorly suited as asoup ld, and perhaps amenable aa dorsop,bookend or paps ‘sight In other words, human activity constrained ad perhaps even prod dey ture of he technology bt ot determined byIntodaion 5 tn ers of computer astm dsign we ae nots piped a to deter nin ithe vale tht wl emerge rom the system we design. Bat ne ther can we act responsi. Fr example ets forthe moment ace tril Pry et ain chapter that cabled people in the workplace should be {eo aces technology just asthe sould be able o access public build dng As ysem designers we can make the choice oy to constuct a echo Ing nteseucute which disable people can accent f we dona ake his ‘hoo, then we single-handedly undermine the principe of universal acess. Bot if we do make thi chic, nd are sucess daed people woud stl rely or example, om employers to ite them. Suitability (sa feature ofthe technology senecary font dont ature acct ahuman le. Users ofcourse, age not always powers when eed with wnwelcomed value oriented fotares of ecelog. For example, sdens in one of my {hss conducted an informal ethnographic investigation of computer usin ‘Noa accounting re. The previous year, his firm had aquired an off the Shel packaged softer progr for preparing tx turns tha automaticaly ‘ported the number of tax returns completed by each employee. But sich ‘vet comparisons among employees resulted in ofce discord. Exployes {hd not belee that the numbers fly portrayed thle veal vale othe fm let alone the el incone they guneatd, Note that this problem arose ‘mole beaut ofthe ulin esture of he software This rm operated tina cooperative fay tle work clare. Ths im thi station the Frm members greed to destroy the compartve data when it was rode. Hoeven. takes ourge to tor way fom qusnttave data tat tll ushow thing are ging even i weratonlly Beles the nambers are misleading and incomplete HUMAN VALUES: A WORKING DEFINITION In some sens, we can sy that any human activity ells uma vale. rink tes instead of soda ecenly attended Cranne exhibit instead of tall gave. Lhave pertonal ales Weal da. Buttes are not the ype of hu san vale wich this volume tes p. Rather ths volumes penal son ‘cone with vals that del with msn welfare and justice This demaraton hen personal and moral ales follows rm the sy chological ierture which has investigated empirical what have been fered hres domains of oil knowledge the moral conventional andpesonal (Noes, 196 Smetana, 1985: Tri 1985)-The moral domain fers pret jgments which pops ast ase on conseation ose ‘Serene rights or human welfare Conventional sues refer tbebavior “Tenors deigaed to promote the smoot functioning of soi interac tion Personalise ee to thor wich euder the jarsieton ofthe sel (Ont ighy ve empirical ste in western and nonwesten countries have ‘demonstrated that young cides, adolescents, and als diferente these {foc forms of knowledge (or eviews ofthe iteatre, ee Smetana 195 Ti {ak go Tail 98 in press Tare, Kille, & Hebi 1987). In adiion, cep a ese ste have analy ow coca aes can often embody all {Goce cope (Smetana, 3: Tui lderandt, & Wainy 99) Abor tion for example isa partic contoveria soci sent only because it Tnounes controversial sumption about when ie begins but Beas per ‘Goal valer that woman has personal urisiction over her own body) can “nit wit mal values thtnvlethe potent welfare and rights off tas). the case that personal and conventional ses can became mor tin specie contests, For example, most peopl in western countries believe (hat ifs man chooses to wen bathrobe, tht she personal choice, Buin “Gotan content thet ars convention about appropriate des. Thus if ‘rum wats is bathrobe toa dignity foneral many people woud je the {et not ony asa conventional latin, bat a moral vioation~a ign of arse Ths fora of nalysscan bring clr into wnderstaning the socal pects computing, For example particular ature of acomputer syste the po- ‘idoning othe track ballon laptop compote) may make system ese 10 the, Bat unless the dficaly of se systematic prevents ean groups of {dvds from using the tenology cae fuse ere isnot amoral vale, ‘bots personal oe, Or onside a vting booth for sein national elections A ero nay prefer teat hit oe her vote by making an ol-fshioned “x” [ext canidte’ name instead of wigan electronic voting syste that uve: punching ota dot on voting cad Buf the person can ay ote Sth the later stern then preferring oe system over the other eects ape ‘Couto On the other andthe ster egies short votertopllale- ‘erthatisabore his rhe each, asa cali happened (Roth, 194 then {he tem prevents fair participation nthe voting proces. Acconingy the ‘human values t take borne moral st simply personal ‘When designing computer seems, conics alo often rte tween c- seational and moral cnsieations. Think of standardization. Oo the one fund, ssariation tees on conventional unformites to enhance thesnot funstioning mong diferent components of aster o among i ferent uses of assem. Imogineifeommrniation protocol onthe internet sree ot standardized: In this ligt, standardization is ial. On the other and, andardiation requiesinividuls to give p some degree of conta verte technology Tia ofthe fistations some workers encounter hen Sompanies gute every worker 1 use the Henial word processor Inet, the debate inthis volume betwee Suchman (chapter 4) 4nd Winograd (chp ter) can be understood is these terms. Suchn objets to sadedied communication onthe grounds that indviduae ae coerced by the tem Winograd counters that though the social conventional coordination of cotnuniatn, oresaccestl and Beef communication sper (Gnd individual elle incense) The human values adessed in thi volume principally refer to moval al us. But prefer to we the broader tr “human ve instead of simpy ‘morlalus to highligh the complexity of wi life and to provide the basis for analyses wherein personal and conventional values can come morally implied DISTINGUISHING VALUE-SENSITIVE DESIGN FROM. USABILITY, Some stem designetshae tendency to confat valent design with usability. Ths problem ares with good eon. Name aby ssl x ‘human valu although not alvaysa moral one But when bth can bea ese bythe same design. Fr example systems which an be modified by ‘ers to meet the neds of specific individuals r organizations ehance tit ably (Aer & Winograd, 1993). At the same ine, uch stems ca help users to ele thi pols an intentions through thc se of the tech. nology~a human value which Nsenbaum and Freda, refer to as ‘Sometimes however, sbi conics wth ale-sestve design, Nien (4999 fr example, ass us oimagine a computer sytem tat checks for fraudulent appliations of people who are spying for unemployment bee Seb asking applicants asmerous personal ution and then check for inconsitence inthe responses. Nien point is that some people may not find the ie socially acceptable hae on the ale of privacy) even the system receives igh usability cores~that sea 0 ear ey to weror fe, ficient, ad soon. Indes, i his volume, Tang (chapter 1) pro ‘ers cae stay offust such confit. ang describes theses which a Tigre fed in dving how to powers microphone. The solution they hted upon mas to power a microphone dct from the workstation. They ‘herey ciminatd separate hardare ont switch on the microphone From suns perspective, ang pnts to benefits rom this desig decison Insofar as. sepatte atey coal wear dow, and thereby aus am income tance othe user, Moceve, to preserve the bar users would no longer eed to remember oes the mizrophone of when it was matin use Homev eaept these wabiity advantages, Tag also shows that the design under ‘ned the movalvlues whch soe wes pliedon privacy apd sec. short, ou lngange and conceptualzations wih the ld currently provide slid means by which ope stae of wait (c Adler & Wino- digs: Norman, 188; Norman & Drape, Nien, 1993). Ths work {simran Ata minimum, abit represens socal organizational aes eel to make systems workin futons sense. At times usability cnalso Support human values of moral impot. Bat times we ned ogive round fn tabi to promote human valde and conversa times we need to fe ground on hua value o promote usability. Soc optimization re- {te judicious dessions, cael weighing and coordinating the advantages ofeach AMOUT THIS BOOK ‘roma vrety of perspectives there as been increasing interest inthe social ‘implications of computer ecology Methods rom anthropology. sociology nt pychoogy, for example, have een usd in understanding computing {hd human values foun indvdoal and oeanizaioal perspectives (Kling {300 abe Ns & Reeves 396 Sproul & Keep; Such, 197; bo Fa). The beatae on computer ethics has revealed the philosophical ‘mensions of computing (mana, Willams & Guteer, 1; Forester. 18% Johnon, 3994 ohnson & Nisenbaum 1995; Ladd 19895 Moot 185). The omputecsopported cooperative work (CSCW) and parcpatry design (PD) communities have enhanced calbortion and the democratic partic tation of individuals within organizations (Blomberg, Sacha, & Trig "oo Boe, 199 Clement Van den Best. 99 Fh, 988; Greenbaum Kg 99 Gr 9; Kahn, 6; Schl &Namiok, 995), More road