Delta by Design: Part 2. Designing for ΔContexts

In Part 1. I make the case for a Mental Model of Humans as Context-Adapting Humans — where ΔHumans adapt to ΔContexts, and ΔContexts adapt to ΔHumans AKA:

“We shape our Contexts, and our Contexts shape us”.

Any Mental model is merely a lens through which we can view the world. What we are able to see and understand shapes what we create. To this end I have outlined some design cases in which ΔHumans allow us to look at Human Behavior in a different way and demonstrate how ΔModel can assist us in designing better solutions.

On a Meta-Level, Δ by Design should always remain adaptable. Implicitly unfinished. Designed for Continuous Adaptation — the same should apply to the model itself.

I would like to start with a Design Problem example posed by Joe Edelman. Joe wrote a provocative piece called “Nothing to be done”, in which he outlines 6 different design cultures based upon 6 different perspectives of Human Beings.

These perspectives are:

Belief-Refining Humans — Behavior Defined by Ideas.
Preference-Satisfying Humans — Behavior defined by personal tastes and desires.
Goal-Pursuing Humans — Behavior defined by goals or needs
Status-seeking Humans — Behavior defined by desire for status within “In-Group”
Social Standing-Demanding Humans — Behavior defined by inequality.
Experience-Sharing Humans — Behavior defined by past experiences.

In his piece he calls for a 7th.

Since Joe is almost certainly working on a 7th, I would like to offer as Context-Adapting Humans as an 8th, along with a proposal for a design culture — Δ by Design. I’ll start with a problem he outlined as a point of reference and departure.

Designing for Delta (Community Event)

“Design Problem. Imagine you run a community conference, and there’s a sexual harassment problem. How should the organization design a response to this community issue?”*

A Δ by Design approach begins by recognising that neither the Event, nor the Human behavior at the event are static affairs.

From a Context-Adapting Human perspective, we need to consider both ΔContexts and ΔHumans.

ΔContexts
In which (Sub)Contexts does sexual harassment takes place?

If we plot our event or community in time and space, what are the points where sexual harassment frequently arise?

Looking at past events — you may find that sexual harassment occurs most frequently after hours during drinks or parties.**

So it would make sense to focus on these Contexts first. At this point you may also wish to explore further effects or problems arising from this specific Context. For Example: If most networking/bonding happens during the after hours events, and the after hours events are. a. potentially threatening for women, b. unattractive spaces for those who don’t drink (teetotalers, muslims, etc.) then what does an alternative and more inclusive event look like?

You may also discern from the Context of the Event as whole that Women are actively Devalued, Sexualised or Under-represented. What role do Women play in the Event — how are their identities Contextualised by the Event?

For example: Do you have women as “hostesses” or “sexy dancers”, but little representation on the stage?

What is the Communicated Context of the Event. Is there clarity of Expectations of Attendees? Is it clear that Sexual Harassment is not acceptable, is there a clear penalty for such behavior?

There are many questions I could raise, and many Sub-Contexts within the Event. In order to avoid going too deep we must focus on the Dominant Forces affecting Human Behavior and address those first. Use the most useful insights, and not attach too much weight to the details.

ΔHumans

There are multiple Δhumans within an Event Context, each is different, and each is changing. Since we cannot model everyone, we should focus on the relevant Human Contexts — Roles they might adopt.

Active Role
Bystander/Harasser/Responder
Bystander/Victim/Responder

Roles are fluid. A Bystander may become a Victim, a Victim may become a Responder, and so on. A Bystander, may become a Harasser or Responder. Everything depends on the Human in question. What are the Contextual Forces and Cues that would bring about such behaviors? What can we do to reinforce positive behaviors and deter negative ones? How does the crowd regulate itself?

What causes them to behave in a certain way, in a certain Context? What shapes their ever-changing Context of Self? How do we affect lasting Change?

At this point each of the original 6 models may be relevant for different individuals — as the Model they believe in themselves is a part of their own Context of Self.

This design question is a great question, and I’d love to go deeper — but that will have to wait for future posts — as the Contexts which affect us are numerous.

Designing for ΔObjects

A ΔObject, should never be seen as finished, but continuously adaptable to the Context of its use. It’s continued usefulness requires that it continuously Adapt in order to remain or become more useful.

This is an evolution from the Everything in Beta philosophy.

A ΔObject helps ΔHuman adapt to/adapt ΔContext. ΔObjects are often used in combination.

One should consider the different dominant Contexts of the thing being designed. Some examples of Contexts are below:

Context of it’s Birth:
What resources needed to create it?
What are the by-products of it’s creation?
How does it affect it’s producers?

Contexts of it’s life:
How does it reach the place where it becomes useful?
In what Contexts is it intended to be used?
In what Contexts could it be used?
How can it be better adapted to suit it’s designated use?
What are it’s needs in order to be useful?
What are it’s needs when it is not in use?
For how long is it designed to be useful?

Context of it’s death:
What happens when it ceases to be Useful in the Context it was intended to be used?
What happens to the materials stored in it’s form?

Elements of the above are contained in Cradle to Cradle, Circular economy and blue economy thinking. However mostly from the perspective of Birth and Death, and how to minimise the Environmental Impacts. Of these 3 Blue Economy is the most interesting, as it explores what happens at the boundary between “Technical Nutrients” and Biological Nutrients — often exploring how the later can be used to break down the former.

Whilst material flows are one concern, we should also better consider the Secondary Contexts in which something is used.

Examples of Secondary Contexts include:
Storage — Where is the object stored when it is not in use?
Cleaning — How is the Object cleaned, what is required to clean it?
Breakage — Can it be repaired?
Unintended use — How else might it be used? For example a knife can also be a weapon, but to use a gun as a hammer is ill advised ;).

Also when we explore the Contexts of an Objects life or usefulness, we should also consider what happens when the overall Context in which it is useful changes and it becomes entirely redundant — Music and Data storage systems are prime examples of this, but even radio and TV now seem archaic in an age of streaming

Designing for ΔInterfaces
If we consider our present user interfaces and how we engage them, there is a language evolving at a cultural level. For example ☰ or … (less known but look to top right) = menu on a website.

The ability to read this language is contextual, it’s easy for those who already understand it, but less so for the newly exposed (with the exception of the young, who are by nature more readily adaptable and inquisitive).

However if we consider the User experience to be in Δ, are there ways in which we can make technology more accessible to a range of User Contexts, that then evolves and adapts to user behavior over time? As the user acquires and remembers the new language, the interface could streamline according to use and preference.

How do we give the user agency in this process?
How do we make it easier for the user to adapt the context of their engagement with your service?
Could a similar thing happen with respect to Online Communities, or Knowledge Communities who quickly develop their own language cliques to save time?

Designing for ΔData
The changing human state is very badly reflected in existing data harvesting and use (at least from my personal experience).

A prime example of this is when I search for and buy something online — after buying something I then receive adverts for the thing I just bought.

Rather than collecting what I now have, the data stored is what I once desired. It has not adapted to my changing Context. As a Δhuman I wish to be able to shed the skin of my past desires and concerns, rather than carrying around some unrepresentative and burdensome digital ghost. I need to let things go in order to grow, why should my digital self be any different?

Whilst at the level of consumer this is a little frustrating, at the level of “threat to society” it is potentially far more dangerous. Online monitoring of individuals cannot possibly take into account the Context of the person engaging with the internet. Especially not when the person themselves is constantly changing.

Even if you could allow me to create my own online image that represented myself, it would be soon be out of date.

“The only man I know who behaves sensibly is my tailor; he takes my measurements anew each time he sees me. The rest go on with their old measurements and expect me to fit them.” George Bernard Shaw

In a world where the pace of change both Contextual and Human is accelerating, how do we create systems that can keep up? How do we ensure that Humans have agency in such systems to ensure that what they are offered reflect their personal needs, rather than lazily reflecting some accumulation of past states?

If someone had access to everything I ever said, and they could pick what was said out of Context and present it in a new Context, they could probably convince you I was the devil himself.

Data should be Designed to Die and better adapt to our Δ selves.

We should be able to choose what is stored about us. From the perspective of all parties this would be advantageous, as the individual would receive offers better suited to their present Context, and marketeers would be better able to understand the actual needs of the individual.

Designing for a ΔSociety

The biggest question I concern myself with is how do we design a society that Nurtures Humanity, that can adapt to our individual needs and differences while at the same time adapting our behaviors towards those which allow us to share this Earth and advance together peacefully.

However such a challenge, requires us to go deeper into our model of ΔContexts and ΔHumans. Read on for Part 3 (coming soon).

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

*note: I honed the Conference, Joe’s original question also features community as separate, but given ΔHuman is a response to ΔContext, it’s necessary to clarify the Context).