What is fear doing to the tech world?
Fear. The word is most often used for an excuse or explanation for why something was not done. I was afraid I was going fail and therefore I couldn’t start it. I was afraid to jump off that high board because my body was telling me it was dangerous. I didn’t eat that last piece of pizza because that green stuff scared me. Fear is our bodies natural instinct of telling us something is wrong. It helps to protect us from harm.
Digital interfaces, for the most part, do not physically harm users. Every interface was created and planned. Not always planned with efficiency or usability in mind, but never the less were planned. When observing a wizard of Oz testing simulation, the subject did not appear nervous or hesitant to interact with the interface. Why was this? If we would have handed them a physical object, would they have acted differently? Because humans are not afraid of being physically harmed with interacting with interfaces, they allow themselves to not be impeded by hesitation based on fear. They are more curious. Subjects allow their minds to wander and wonder. How can this be harnessed by creators? Should there be a way for humans to get “hurt”? A child who touches something hot learns quickly to be wary in their interaction with that object in the future. Are we as designer hindering a user’s ability to learn faster by removing the possibility of physical harm? Or are we altering the way humans learn for the better?
The internet is not a safe space. Identities are stolen, people are cat-fished, passwords for Amazon Prime accounts are taken, apps have hidden fees that can easily add up to hundreds of dollars. Jack Black’s son accumulated $2000 worth of charges from a simple app. His parent did not find out about this until weeks later. There are such preventions to this incident, such as child locks and disabling a credit card attached to a user’s account. However, this is comparable to putting a gate around a pool. The gate will hopefully prevent an accident by keeping the child out of the enclosed area. But isn’t this just teaching a child to fear the area and not respect the dangers it presents? Wouldn’t it be easier to teach the child to swim? It would be safer for them to learn. Should we teach children that this is area is a “no no”? How can we as designers be able to do that? Is it morally correct to involve pain in learning? This is something that a student may argue still exists. When learning humans experience a psychological push that feels real. Is this discomfort morally correct? Should physical and mental pain be looked at as two different things?
As a society mental health is not looked at in the same light as physical. People are often told to just get over what is happening mentally, because they are not physically harmed. This demonstrates that the perception of mental capabilities are weaker than physical ones and therefore can be more easily overcome. Yet at the same time there is a general consensus that hope, and beliefs are stronger than diamonds, one of the hardest substances ever discovered. Why is it we have this contradiction of strength of mental ability; it is easy to overcome but hard to breakdown?
The mind is an amazing place that has a unique way of learning. So, are we preventing the natural way a person learns by removing all physical consequences in a virtual setting? Or are we creating a future where people are better at visualizing a consequence than experiencing it? It is feasible to assume that this could be how a new future is created. This future would have humans interacting solely virtually. Hollywood has already created this scenario in the movie “Surrogates”, where humans live out their lives through robots. However, the characters always felt something was missing. We gain information not just through sight, but smell, touch, sensation of the area around us. However, these characters were able to accomplish things because they weren’t afraid of death, ironically. The characters used these robots with heptic responses, so they wouldn’t die from mundane things.
Humans fight to survive every day. We have to breathe, eat, drink water and sleep. Our bodies have a natural reaction to things. Humans react to colors and associate certain symbols to mean certain things. People have been taught that a giant red X is a warning. If a designer utilized this in a different way, they are altering a set association, or the user will be confused. The knowledge of what a symbol typically does prevents a user from casually clicking on it. The fear is gone because there is understanding. When there is no fear, users can explore and use an interface how they want. This allows for creativity and exploration. For instance, if a user was taught how to drive a car using a simulation, they would be able to safely learn how to merge on a highway. This is a necessary skill to know if you drive. Without fear, a driver is better able to understand and take instructions because they can focus better. The same could be said for patient simulators for medical students. The lack of fear helps people to focus.
Fear cannot be removed because it is a natural human reaction. We as user interface designers have the luxury to be able to create a setting that can use this fear for our benefit. We have the time to study how users typically would interact, track their heart-rate and movements. Real life doesn’t allow for second chances such as this. The real question is can these planned interfaces be considered natural if you can rewind and try again?
