billpapa.org Reading (b)log

Gender and Design Cultures in Information and Communication Technologies (Oudshoorn et al., 2004)

 

This paper describes the design of two “digital cities” in the mid-nineties, one in the public and one in the private sector. The focus is on how the designers’ conception of the user is shaped by their own identity. Both projects aimed at catering to everybody. The first digital city project was based on internet access, and in order to be accessible to others than the internet demographic at the time—in 1995 the internet was overwhelmed by young males—the city of Amsterdam funded the installation of terminals in various public spaces (city hall, public libraries, elderly homes). In the course of the project the interface changed from a text-based to a WWW graphic based one, thus shifting the user demographics away from everybody: even the public terminals were removed as they attracted people who “sat there for hours without ordering anything”.

The approach employed by designers in both projects was the “I-Methodology”, where the designers consider themselves as representative of the users (Akrich, 1995). The problem lies in the fact that designers are different from their users. This is reflected in both their expectations on user behaviour and preferences. For example in one project the team opted for learning the system through trial and error rather than providing a solid tutorial – because the designers felt it was better. And it is: at least if you are male according to Turkle (1991).

The private sector project included only minimal user participation and this only from within the company, in fear of competitors. The fact that such users are not representative is obvious: when the service was tested in a larger user base the team discovered that their main user profiles: “active user” and “couch potato” didn’t apply to everybody. In particular, housewives, the elderly and young girls did not fit.

One would expect that large projects like these, in large corporations would rely on more formal user-centred design methods, but this is not the case. Geeks design for geeks and the product is only used by geeks: does it remind you of something?

References

Akrich, M. (1995). User Representations: Practices, methods and sociology. In A. Rip, T. J. Misa & J. Schot (Eds.), Managing Technology in Society: The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment (pp. 167-184). London: Pinter Publishers.

Turkle, S. (1991). Computational Reticence: Why Women Fear the Intimate Machine. In C. Kramarae (Ed.), Technology and Women’s Voices (pp. 41-61). Boston: Routledge.

 

 

This entry was posted on Tuesday, February 20th, 2007 at 2:05 pm and is filed under design, ethnography, modelling. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.