Dear Gunnar,
I see lots of these kinds of things to consider, especially in the field of digital design (software, services, devices), but one question is to what extent the consequences are intended or not.
As only one example, the dominant digital platforms are designed to enable their owners to acquire and maintain a level of dominance over their ecosystems and user base (us), which is not, in my opinion, in the interest of their customers or the society in general. How much individual designers may influence these kinds of strategies is debatable, but I would say that designers can even in these circumstances strive to create spaces of design freedom (i.e. design for designability) for the members in the ecosystem and end-users through their work, which can be a more or less significant or useful contribution for emancipation.
My two cents for principles would be:
- Design for designability, i.e. consider the end-users as designers of their own lives and try to empower them and expand their design space with your own designs. Design to give them potential to create further designs you may not be able to imagine yourself.
- Design for complex ecosystems: Take into account that their design ecosystem, where your design will have to live, is more complex than you can imagine (now and in the future, as it continually evolves) and design for robust tolerance and ecosystemic awareness for survival and reliable performance within such complex circumstances.
Of course, in addition to the dominant platforms, designers can also engage with more political activities and join movements creating open and open source designs. WIthin those, the same principles would be useful and helpful, and might have more leverage, if they find an economically viable strategy for sustainability.
I know that this is probably not the direction most people think about when talking about “manufacturing inequality”, and I am sure many will have other, more readily resonating examples; however, I believe the design of proprietary digital platforms is one of the central arenas where mounting inequality is today manufactured and a major mechanism how it is rapidly deployed as an infrastructure nobody can avoid or remain outside of, across the global society.
cheers, Kari-Hans
---
> On 13 Jul 2016, at 16:32, Gunnar Swanson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> It is very clear how machine learning and AI can shape our lives but I’m wondering if anyone has observations on how other aspects of design create unintended negative social conditions. There are a lot of obvious lessons in accessibility efforts but there must be a vast range of unnoticed exclusions going on in all sorts of design.
>
> Can anyone suggest directions to consider, especially things that designer awareness might affect?
------------------
Kari-Hans Kommonen
Director, Arki research group
Media Lab, Dept of Media
Aalto University, School of Arts, Design and Architecture (Aalto ARTS)
mail: PO Box 16500, FI-00076 AALTO
visit: Miestentie 3, 02150 ESPOO, Finland
email: [log in to unmask]
mobile: +358 405010729
in Japan: +81 80-2396-2896
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|