Beth Altringer: I think it’s inter­est­ing to think about what if we start­ed every design and tech­nol­o­gy com­pa­ny, or every design and tech­nol­o­gy prod­uct that we’re cre­at­ing with three ques­tions. And the first ques­tion is what is real­ly desir­able about this thing? The sec­ond ques­tion is for whom—so, who are we real­ly design­ing for? And we do an okay job of ask­ing those first two ques­tions. But the third ques­tion is who we are not design­ing for.

I teach my stu­dents that design is ongo­ing risky decision-making. And what I mean by ongo­ing is that you nev­er real­ly get to stop ques­tion­ing the assump­tions that you’re mak­ing and that are under­ly­ing what it is that you’re creating—those fun­da­men­tal premis­es. Things change, you change, the mar­ket changes. And you have to have as part of your prac­tice an ongo­ing process of revis­it­ing those fun­da­men­tal assumptions.

So, in the aca­d­e­m­ic com­mu­ni­ty we have these rig­or­ous stan­dards for the eth­i­cal reviews that we must go through before we even under­take research that we might pub­lish. And an exam­ple of that… So if you look at like— You might have seen Facebook’s emo­tion­al con­ta­gion study. And they came under a lot of crit­i­cism when peo­ple real­ized that they were manip­u­lat­ing the sort of emo­tion­al tenor of peo­ple’s feeds. And that is an exam­ple of a study that would’ve nev­er passed aca­d­e­m­ic eth­i­cal review boards. And what’s real­ly inter­est­ing is that in this pro­fes­sion­al population—the aca­d­e­m­ic population—we’ve decid­ed on a val­ue sys­tem in terms of what is eth­i­cal to do to peo­ple who are active par­tic­i­pants of a study, and peo­ple who are pas­sive par­tic­i­pants or non-par­tic­i­pants of a study. And in busi­ness, and par­tic­u­lar­ly in the tech com­mu­ni­ty, there’s a notable absence of a sim­i­lar review system.

And these types of deci­sions of who we design for and who we don’t design for, these are ulti­mate­ly val­ues deci­sions. They’re very messy. Like, there’s no answer about who we should and should not design for. The answer is to con­tin­ue to have that dia­logue and con­tin­ue to have the basic infor­ma­tion that we need to have that dialogue—for design­ers to have that dia­logue, for fun­ders to be part of that dia­logue, for young stu­dents fresh out of school decid­ing who to work for to be able to have that dia­logue, for con­sumers to be able to have that dia­logue about what val­ue sys­tems they want to sup­port with their busi­ness. We need that con­tin­u­ous ongo­ing ques­tion­ing of design assump­tions and decisions.

Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Cash App, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.