uxmelina

Today, I took part in the “The Ritual of the Calling of the Engineer“, a ceremony taken by many students who complete accredited engineering programs in Canada. The ceremony involved making a moral, ethical and professional commitment to my profession. I was “wedded to cold iron” (as they say), when given an iron ring to wear on my pinky finger of my working hand. This ring acts as a reminder of this commitment.

The ethical obligation held by more traditional engineering disciplines is clear. If a civil engineer doesn’t act ethically, and fails to design a bridge safely, then people could, and likely would, be harmed when it fails.

Can ethics have as important outcome in UX design? I say yes! It may not be as obvious at first, especial to people just starting out in the feild (such as myself), but I saw this talk last week (shown below) and it started to make me think. Robert Fabricant talks about IxD, I recommend watching the whole thing, but around the half way point he talks about the difference between output, outcome, and impact of design. I understand it as the result on the project level, user level, and society level. He uses the example of purity pledges with Evangelicals. I will summarize his distinction in his example.

Output (project level) : purity pledges, purity balls, rings (as designed)

Outcome (user level): teens taking the pledge, father’s giving rings to daughters (as designed)

Impact (society level): Higher teen pregnancy in Evangelical (not intended design)

It’s the impact where ethics really come into play. As shown with the purity pledge, if designers don’t consider this level fully, it becomes clear of the unethical results that can occur with a design. Robert talks about the need for an “impact model” similar to business models used for new ideas.

Since an impact model doesn’t really exist right now, can you think of any methods to determine an impact model or elements that an ideal model would have?

Robert Fabricant - Behavior is our Medium from Interaction Design Association on Vimeo.

Disclaimer: This was a commentary I wrote for my class that looks at the impact of design on society. People who know me well, know I would never say something is “impossible”, it just may be out of reach right now…but this was written to meet the objectives of the assignment.

When robots live among us is provocative article that asks a lot of tough questions.

Could they be engineered to show loyalty or to get anger?

Will [they] enrich our social lives?

Will they compete for sexual partners?

As a designer, my traditional stance on subjects such as these, is nothing is impossible with the right design. However in the case of the humanoid robots advancing to the point of blurring the line between humans and robots, I don’t think this is likely to happen anytime soon.
Looking at the MAYA principle, designs must be “most advanced yet acceptable” [1] . A humanoid robot acting as friends and/or potential sexual partners far exceeds the level of what is “acceptable”. Consider the recent passing of Proposition 8 in the state of California. If humans can’t accept the idea of two humans (regardless of gender) acting as sexual partners they can’t be expected to accept a genderless robot playing the roll.

The article sites proof that children have empathy for toys and as such it’s reasonable to expend that principle to adults. Children’s brains are still developing as they explore their environment. This fact explains why they mimic adults (a parent with a baby) while playing with a doll. It also explains the social contract that makes it acceptable for children to behave in this way. This social contract could not be violated by adults or they would be regarded as developmentally challenged. Imagine a grown man on a subway tending to every need of a plastic doll. This is the very same social contract that would prevent humanoid robots from replacing human relationships.

Designing a robot to replace human relationships is an example where “the interests of technology experts may clash with those of the general public” [2]. In this case, the research being done will help understand the human brain and advance the field of cognitive science. As such robots can still benefit society both in the research that results and the function they can provide. It is important that the way they are represented considered MAYA and social contract discussed to ensure their success. This representation must focus on the robot as a tool, strictly inanimate object that is purchased to solve a problem (like a blender) and not to replace human relationships or interactions.

As always, thoughts and ideas are always welcome!

References
1. University of Waterloo, STV 202 Fall 2008 Course Notes. Culture.
2. University of Waterloo, STV 202 Fall 2008 Course Notes. The Human Being & Design Culture.