Authors:lei@codified.nl (Lei Nelissen Abstract: Connected products and applications increasingly leverage users’ personal data in their core functions. Designing privacy-sensitive interfaces for such data-related applications is a delicate craft. There is often tension between designers and changing user perceptions of privacy, data monetization, legal requirements, and organizational power structures, often resulting in designer complicity in privacy violations. This work examines the process of designing privacy-oriented interfaces in terms of compliance, ethics, and creativity, and specifically how designers weigh competing interests in resolving an ethical conflict. We study this through a speculative enactment, ChoiceBox, in which 33 design students and professional designers explore UX design through a privacy lens with a series of fictional clients. The resulting interviews and wireframes are analyzed for Privacy UX insights. The results show a limited awareness of how legal principles affect design practice, and how some designers easily violated boundaries in terms of ethics—even their own. We show how designers are not immune to enacting and rationalizing dark patterns of Privacy UX, and how speculative enactments can be a tool to foreground crucial issues of friction and ambiguity regarding end-user privacy and data protection in design education and practice. PubDate: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 22:45:08 +080
Authors:drhhtang@gapps.ntust.edu.tw (Hsien-Hui Tang Abstract: The customer journey of a public transport service for visually impaired people has relatively few stages, but the transitions between different channels of the customer journey are complex. They are the result of multiple roles of service providers and users, the interplay between digital and physical environments, and the influences of decision makers in public service. There are only a limited number of case studies in service design that demonstrate methods to analyse the complexity of these problems and resolve the interlinked issues. This case study analyses the design of EyeBus, which was commissioned by the Ministry of Science and Technology in Taiwan and implemented in Taipei City as a public service, to illustrate the complexity of service design at different stages, including 1) problem distillation from multiple stakeholders, 2) omni-channel system design, and 3) sustainable development with multiple separate public and private sector actors. Additionally, this paper discusses the potential complexity factors in public service design and suitable design methods at each stage for future service innovation. PubDate: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 22:44:55 +080
Authors:daniela.sangiorgi@polimi.it (Daniela Sangiorgi Abstract: Designing within complex service systems implies navigating across a plurality of norms and beliefs that multiple stakeholder groups uphold, designers included. Transformational processes may be challenged by minimum, moderate, or extensive conflict depending on the centrality or compatibility of competing logics. This article reflects on how the complexity inherent in higher level institutional orders of society can support or inhibit the potential of co-design in complex systems, particularly in the public sector. Using the context of public mental healthcare transformation as a backdrop, we identified and reflected on four predominant logics: the logic of state; the logic of market; the logic of profession; and the logic of community. We then developed a set of tools to support reflexivity—the excel Logic Multiplicity Workbook and the Layers of Logics Map—that can be used to take project logics snapshots to represent the perceived strength of project stakeholder logics at the micro, meso, and macro levels and their centrality and compatibility. Three co-design project examples were used to retrospectively develop and refine these tools, and support the process of making explicit the role of competing logics in project challenges or triumphs. While we acknowledge that logics are often highly institutionalized and difficult to become aware of, we value as fundamental the creation of tools to better enable designers to consciously adopt adequate strategies to navigate this complexity. PubDate: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 22:44:34 +080
Authors:m.vanderbijl-brouwer@tudelft.nl (Mieke van der Bijl - Brouwer Abstract: Service design is increasingly seen as a means to enable systemic change in complex contexts. The contexts in which services are co-produced—the social group, network, service organisation, or ecosystem—can be considered complex social systems. A characteristic of complex social systems is that new system behaviour emerges through a mechanism called self-organisation. Self-organisation shows how human relationships are at the core of social systemic change. Such systemic changes are reflected in system behaviour such as adaptation, mutual learning, and collective creativity and motivation. As service design is in essence about human relationships, it becomes relevant to ask how we can design for human relationships to positively enable social systemic change' In this paper, I argue that expert design reasoning is an important source in designing conditions that enable positive human relationships, and that this design reasoning can be expanded to work towards a design rationale for systemic change by building on theories of complex social systems. I illustrate this perspective with the reasoning of service designers in two cases, who used their insights to design for human relationships. I conclude with a discussion of the implications for service design practice and service design education. PubDate: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 22:44:21 +080
Authors:pcas@dtu.dk (Philip James Cash Abstract: Behavioural design is an important area of research and practice key to addressing behavioural and societal challenges. Behavioural design reflects a synthesis of design and behavioural science, which draws together aspects of abductive, inductive, and deductive reasoning to frame, develop, and deliver behaviour change through purposefully designed interventions. However, this synthesis creates major questions as to how methods are selected, adapted, and used during behavioural design. To take a step toward answering these questions we conducted fifteen interviews with globally recognised experts. Based on these interviews we deliver three main contributions. First, we provide an overview of the methods used in all phases of the behavioural design process. Second, we identify behavioural uncertainty as a key driver of method use in behavioural design. Third, we explain how this creates a tension between design and scientific concerns—related to interactions between abductive, inductive, and deductive reasoning—which must be managed across the behavioural design process. We bring these insights together in a basic conceptual framework explaining how and why methods are used in behavioural design. Together these findings take a step towards closing critical gaps in behavioural design theory and practice. They also highlight several directions for further research on method use and uncertainty as well as behavioural design expertise and professional identity. PubDate: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 22:44:04 +080
Open Access journal
[1 journal]
