Writing on chapter 5 today, I had a hard time arguing why exactly it is better to have users feel in control of the technology than not. It is hard to argue this with my data because my participants actually used the services anyway even though they reported they didn't feel in control of their interactive device. Perhaps they just felt deeply depressed inside with this sensor-based technology taking over their life and leaving them powerless? But still feeling compelled to use it. So is this good or bad? It is like arguing that it is better to have happy people. I mean, says who? Who says that it is better to have a world full of happy people, what if it's just as good if people are unhappy or just plain grumpy? What if it didn't matter if people felt in control of the technology, if we just had to deal with computers that do random things and not always react to our input? So what if my cell phone goes blank several times a day and tell me that I am located in Jutland rather than Copenhagen? So what if I had to live with notifications of McDonald's newest meals every time I passed by the one down the street despite not remembering the last time I sat foot in there? Would I toss my cell phone? Would I change subscription, would I stop using technology? Probably not. I would constantly feel a lack of control over my devices and perhaps even my life (oh, that’s right, I already do that...) but would it make me less happy? And why do I as a researcher and designer care about making people happy anyway?
Posted by Louise at July 17, 2004 11:56 PMMatrix first: The computer made a program where all humans were happy. Bad idea. Humans don't live off happiness so they started dying. Therefore the computer made a more real place, much like our world . Humans strive to become happy, but when achieving a goal set up a new one. Motrhead quote: "the chase is better than the catch".
That all for happiness for now. I think you confuse terms. Happynes and Control are not the same thing. To design products to make people be & feel in control (both are important) is not the same thing as to design products to make people happy. I don't think happy equals "lack of anoyances" I think it is a bit more than that.
Well, on to your point. Why design for people being in control? First arguument: Because if people can choose between two otherwise identical products, they choose the one they that bug them the least. Second argument: from an ethical point of view you *should* let people keep control over theyr lives.
Counter arguments:
Define control: Control isn't all it's made out to be. People care about skins in their IM client and about creeting cards and other seemingly unimportant things. They don't really care about SSH and privacy. They care about viruses if they destroy somthing or send mails and make the infected party look bad. They don't care about Doubleclick cookies that track their behavior on the net. In other words, as long as your phone works and you percieve it as more cumbersome to get a new phone, a message blocker or whatever than to delete the occasional McD message, then you'll live with it. You can get used to many things. you adapt and filter out stuff, forget it.
So in conclusion I think argument 1 is the most repeated argument, but I honestly don't think that it really matters that much. Just like security. First thing on people's wish list, and the first to go if they really have to cut something. On the other hand, argument 2, the ethical demand, I think that is a sound reason and something all off us ought to follow.
cheers
Christian
ps. This system would make me feel less anoyed if there was somekind of indication that Name and Email are required fields as opposed to URL.
Posted by: Christian Hagel at July 18, 2004 06:56 PMIsn't it just more enjoyable to be in control? To own a thingy that make you be able to get "deeper" into the technology is definately more enjoyable than to have a gadget than seems strange and unpredictable.
Yes, even if it acted in a unfortunate way I would still use the thing...until the day where the amount of unpleasanties, unfortunalities, unpredictables, etc. would outnumber the opposite. Then I would personally burn/crush/stomp/kick the object - unless it was very expensive of course. Because then it would just end its days in a drawer and I would decide I could go on living a fulfilling and rewarding life without it.
Tommy, I agree, to a point anyway. Not feeling in control is annoying and will eventually make me angry and lead to stomping or drawer. However, people will happily buy a product that will later infuriate them, so when Louise asks how she can argue for designing for "in control" the answer could be:
1) She did not test the services long enough for people to really get angry
2) The benefits outweighted the negatives
3) the testees did not have an alternative service.
I recently read an article/interview in which the main thesis was: When you design a product, then design it as a platform, a starting point and not a finished product. When you release a phone, think of it as if its real development begins there. Let the platform be open to be messed with. I think this goes for almost any interaktive product. You should be able to enhance it, at least to a certain degree -> be able to build new levels for a game, write new apps for a phone, tweak / replace the UI of your OS etc.
-Christian
Posted by: Christian Hagel at July 18, 2004 09:22 PMThank you both for good comments, they definitely inspired me to think some more. First of all, though, Christian you misunderstood me when commenting on that I think control make people happy. I was simply using it as an analogy, I did not wish to make any speculations of that kind. Second, I truely believe that it is better to have people be in control of the technology, especially because it is very easy to reject something that make one feel unconfortable (as Tommy points to). The ethical arguement is therefore an easy one to use but not well supported by literature. I guess it comes down to that I don't have any real support for 'annoyance' and its relation to sense of control. And I also think that 'sense of control' is much more complex and I therefore subscribe to Christian's counter argument that it really depends on the situation and the type of 'control'; in many cases people don't give a .... about other parties controling their technology as long as it is to their advantage.
Posted by: Louise at July 19, 2004 10:10 AMI really have a hard time accepting your sentence "The ethical arguement is therefore an easy one to use but not well supported by literature". How can 2500 years of writing on what the heck ethics are, what the good life is etc. not provide enough literature to support an argument about you having an obligation to design for control?
Well, actually, i must probably support you anyway. Even though all moral theories I can possibly think of will tell you that you MUST design for what's good, you still need to prove that putting people in control is good, and if you can show that, I guess you don't need the ethicakl argument as noone will argue against it.
Go read Løgstrup anyway... time well spent.
Posted by: Christian Hagel at July 20, 2004 08:40 PMIsn't "in control" quite vague? In control of what?
Technically speaking, only an omnipotent God is in complete control.
Right now, I am in control of which computer to use, which browser, but I can't control the comment system of MT. If I set aside a few months, I might be able to make a very bad browser, but I am never going to do that. I don't want to write by own OS either.
On my own blog, I have complete control of the PHP and MySQL layer, but only if I am willing to spend huge amounts of time on it.
Having many redeeming geek-like qualities, Louise writes in LaTex, which gives a lot of control (the hacker ethic) but is IMO a complete waste of time compared to an actual word processor like (cough) Word.
A few weeks back I decided _not_ to have control over a server at work, because I would rather use my time differently - control also feeds extra work.
Sometimes a lack of control can make you happy as well ...