Re-imagining Human-Centred Design
Exploring what technological innovation could look like at the intersection of scientific advancement and social progress through Ruha Benjamin’s keynote speech, “Which Humans? Innovation, Equity, and Imagination in Human-Centred Design.”
“Pushing the taste of a few on the taste of many.”
Ruha Benjamin’s keynote provides thought-provoking insights that link the disparities within our approach to ‘frictionless & minimalistic’ design. On 28th August 2021, Srishti SIGCHI hosted a virtual discussion circle on this very keynote speech. During the talk, Ruha drew attention to various examples of how conventional design hides the complexity of the systems at work below the surface. This continually enforces that technology innovations are not synonymous with social progress. Drawing from this talk, many questions were raised about our approach to designing for the masses within our practice in the creative economy.
The glorified minimalist
An interesting aspect of this that we delved into was the concept of ‘minimalism’ and how it obscures the plurality of human experiences by prioritising the experiences and desires of the dominant few. The people working behind the scenes have now become invisible in the name of minimalism. Our discussion brought to light experiences falling within a spectrum of what design standards we hold ideal. Some described instances wherein western designs that propagate minimalism have been considered the ultimate standard of design excellence. Some shared their ideas about beauty in complex and inclusive designs that celebrate the vernacular of local cultures. What is interesting to ponder here is the third emerging perspective that questions both sides of the coin.
Firstly, why would the user want to see the tangles and complexities of the design they are engaging with?
Consumers care more for ease. Or at least, that is the consensus of the majority we choose to consider while designing. Conversely, we recognise that the needs of the many are lost under the weight of the prioritised few. This brought us to an impasse where we as designers recognised the need to reflect personally on how we choose to approach these opposing views. Are we inclusive of the cultural progress of humanity? Are we truly designing for contexts where humans and technologies co-exist? How do we approach altering this dominant and oppressive ideal of design?
Frictionless, but for who?
Design choices have become equivalent to the social hierarchies of the society we live within. With the acceptance of minimalistic design as an ideal, the design process goes unnoticed and ignored. The complex systems end up being whitewashed to give the illusion of ‘frictionless design.’ Upon reflection of ‘frictions’ we have come across, it was surprising to realise how common it was. One such experience was about how start-ups in their state of generating profits and achieving growth prioritise ‘frictionless’ marketing schemes over the ethicality and impact of their design. What does frictionless even mean? This can be answered by pondering over whom we are designing for and what aspects of the ingrained social prejudices we carry forth in the technology we design.
Do our designs prioritise ease of use over security? Do we represent our designs based on the reality of our users, or do we rely on cosmetic representations to increase our revenue? Frictionless, but for who?
The indomitable bias
Ruha’s views on the inconsistencies in our design and societal ideologies are more prominent than we think. It brings to mind several examples, like how algorithms inherit creators’ and users’ biases depending on the users selected for data collection. Who are these users? Whom do they represent in society? Our privilege and negligence in considering the effects of something that seems harmless in theory have led us to create a design that excludes those who were not but an after-thought. To explain this better, we can look at Data Feminism by Catherine D’Ignazio and Lauren F. Klein. Here, they provide an example of instances wherein facial sensors fail to recognise the faces of men of colour and women. This is a result of machines made by and made for a certain racial group, and data, thus, was collected mainly from them too. Bias is in many ways ingrained at the very core of our ‘inclusive’ process.
Unless the process is driven by conscious, unbiased inclusion, we will continue to find ourselves forever mitigating discrimination after design deployment.
In conclusion
India is home to one of the most diverse ranges of cultures, traditions, and aesthetics. When someone mentions Indian Aesthetics, the first images in our minds are Sanskrit symbols or Brahmanical Hindu patterns. We all might not be Hindus, but we are familiar with this pattern, and that is because it is the first layer of the “Indian aesthetic.” India, being this diverse, can have multiple representations, but why is this the most common one? Can Indian aesthetics be singularly defined? Why is there an incessant need for defining one dominant aesthetic? Furthermore, who has a say in defining it? It is intriguing how this particular discussion spans beyond the creative economy. It delves into the nooks and crannies of every field of human intervention, our thought processes, and social structures. These discussions on such scale and platforms give us room to explore the ethicality of our approaches, how we choose to situate ourselves and innovate within society. Within the field of Human-Computer Interaction, this particular perspective has given new meaning to designing for a context where humans and computers reside together.
What would technological innovation look like when it matches the social & cultural progress of the times? It is something I hope to discover for myself and see emerge for the ‘inclusive’ society.
