This week’s readings are important for everyone primarily in the technology and design area and in particularly relevant for the segment of that group which designs for people in the developing world. In the process of thinking of solutions, making designs and products for people, we challenge our own social and cultural norms and try at best to imagine how the user of that technology will ultimately use it, if and when they do.
One of the readings talks about a major controversial initiative that was spun right out of the Media Lab. The One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) organization was founded by Professor Negroponte and the organization’s mission is “… to empower the children of developing countries to learn by providing one connected laptop to every school-age child.” According to the OLPC, they are empowering children to get an education which will enable them to better understand their capabilities and allow them to use tools needed to make the world “a more productive and saner” place.
This need to provide a laptop to every child around the world comes from the theory of constructivism, which states that people learn from building on constructs they have formed in their minds in the past or by simply just actually doing an activity. In addition, having the laptops be connected is a vision, which the OLPC thinks will solve the simplest of problems (figuring out the periods of the moon) or the hardest of problems (for example, the impact of bringing XO laptops to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other regions and their role on peace and stability). However, this vision though seemingly attractive to us educators and designers in the developed world might not be aligned with that of a village far away in a rural village.
The second reading by Irani, L. et al. places a broader context around the OLPC project and other development initiatives. “Postcolonial Computing” questions the motive, context, and execution of projects by designers for the “others”. The authors offer their suggestions that design projects should consider “engagement” (by learning the most from users of the technology being developed), “articulation” (the package and usability of the technology) and “translation” (how products are designed from idea stage to offering support for their functionality) if they were to not fall into the “postcolonial computing” conundrum.
As indicated by Irani and the other authors, their article was not to be a criticism or a definite answer as to what the best approach is for design for the developing world, but rather an introspective analysis of what really drives that design to empower others. Questions like; is it enough to talk to a few people who represent a “culture” for us to design for the whole community? Is Culture something that can actually inform our design process and if it does, how should we think of culture; a set of tools available to a group of people in a defined area? Think GUIs and symbols used on laptops and other programming solutions- do they make the same sense for everyone? As designers for others, we are left with a lot of questions of how we should design to ensure “user adaptability”- more like create a “toolkit for design” to avoid a failure like the light bulb example. What other technologies fall under this same category?
Finally, the readings give the reader an opportunity to think about why they design in the first place. Is it to share “knowledge”? And why must the designer think their knowledge is better than that of the user? It is suggested that “Participatory Design” can be a step in the right direction when it comes to building relationships, straight bridges and connections between the designer and the user. Much like colonialism, it is easy to imagine the designer as a benevolent and thoughtful person who is going to help the “others” solve their problems. The same network of flow of ideas and products from the West, and raw resources from the rest that happened in the colonial times is evident today. When it really comes down to it, who do designers empower; themselves, the users or other corporate and political groups?
Comments(1)
This week’s readings are important for everyone primarily in the technology and design area and in particularly relevant for the segment of that group which designs for people in the developing world. In the process of thinking of solutions, making designs and products for people, we challenge our own social and cultural norms and try at best to imagine how the user of that technology will ultimately use it, if and when they do.
One of the readings talks about a major controversial initiative that was spun right out of the Media Lab. The One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) organization was founded by Professor Negroponte and the organization’s mission is “… to empower the children of developing countries to learn by providing one connected laptop to every school-age child.” According to the OLPC, they are empowering children to get an education which will enable them to better understand their capabilities and allow them to use tools needed to make the world “a more productive and saner” place.
This need to provide a laptop to every child around the world comes from the theory of constructivism, which states that people learn from building on constructs they have formed in their minds in the past or by simply just actually doing an activity. In addition, having the laptops be connected is a vision, which the OLPC thinks will solve the simplest of problems (figuring out the periods of the moon) or the hardest of problems (for example, the impact of bringing XO laptops to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other regions and their role on peace and stability). However, this vision though seemingly attractive to us educators and designers in the developed world might not be aligned with that of a village far away in a rural village.
The second reading by Irani, L. et al. places a broader context around the OLPC project and other development initiatives. “Postcolonial Computing” questions the motive, context, and execution of projects by designers for the “others”. The authors offer their suggestions that design projects should consider “engagement” (by learning the most from users of the technology being developed), “articulation” (the package and usability of the technology) and “translation” (how products are designed from idea stage to offering support for their functionality) if they were to not fall into the “postcolonial computing” conundrum.
As indicated by Irani and the other authors, their article was not to be a criticism or a definite answer as to what the best approach is for design for the developing world, but rather an introspective analysis of what really drives that design to empower others. Questions like; is it enough to talk to a few people who represent a “culture” for us to design for the whole community? Is Culture something that can actually inform our design process and if it does, how should we think of culture; a set of tools available to a group of people in a defined area? Think GUIs and symbols used on laptops and other programming solutions- do they make the same sense for everyone? As designers for others, we are left with a lot of questions of how we should design to ensure “user adaptability”- more like create a “toolkit for design” to avoid a failure like the light bulb example. What other technologies fall under this same category?
Finally, the readings give the reader an opportunity to think about why they design in the first place. Is it to share “knowledge”? And why must the designer think their knowledge is better than that of the user? It is suggested that “Participatory Design” can be a step in the right direction when it comes to building relationships, straight bridges and connections between the designer and the user. Much like colonialism, it is easy to imagine the designer as a benevolent and thoughtful person who is going to help the “others” solve their problems. The same network of flow of ideas and products from the West, and raw resources from the rest that happened in the colonial times is evident today. When it really comes down to it, who do designers empower; themselves, the users or other corporate and political groups?