Whilst the main preoccupation of information designers, as evidenced by this list (and recent issues of IDJ) appears to be a concerted attempt to cloister the subject in the groves of academe - making scholarly citations, coining neologisms and generally finding the most obscure ways of talking about the simplest things - I can't help but feel there is a darker side to what we do that perhaps isn't being thought about at all.
As the 'Information Revolution' gathers momentum*, information designers are increasingly being cast as the 'midwives' who can deliver the 'humanized' products of a systems culture. On the one hand, we develop the instruments that coax our neighbours to part with the information needed to feed the machine. On the other hand, we dress up its output to look as if it were addressed to individuals and to suggest authorship by some concerned and caring person. And, of course, some of us also sweeten the somewhat bitter pill of automatization with thoughtful, if not cute, interfaces.
But, as others have pointed out (most notably Stephen Talbot in 'The Future Does Not Compute', but also Roszak in 'The Cult of Information' and Mander in 'In the Absence of the Sacred') the behemoth of technology appears to be running by itself. The kind of society predicted (with obvious enthusiasm) by George Gilder, where 'fiberspace' will enable corporations to make our lives much easier by keeping huge amounts of data on us, and precisely targeting their offerings to our apparent 'needs', may just come about by default. And one can be sure that behind every probing data entry form, every ingratiating laser printed statement, every seductive input screen, there will be an information designer hoping for a business effectiveness award.
How then does this square with the perception we have of ourselves, that we (alone of graphic designers, and in marked contrast to the 'stylists') are somehow making the world a better place? Even in my memory, designers have repeatedly been the instruments for dramatic social changes for the worse. In the sixties and seventies, it was architects and town planners who devastated our urban areas with concrete monstrosities - machines a l'habiter - that have now broken down and are uninhabitable. In the eighties, retail designers ensured that whatever romantic locations our towns and cities were twinned with - they were inevitably 'cloned with Milton Keynes'. Will it be information designers who are responsible for the millenial mess-up - delivering Baudrillard's prediction of a time when signs would be used to hide the absence of reality?
*(Incidentally, and worryingly, this appears to be the first revolution in history that simultaneously combines the phases of the 'great leap forward' - making hugely inflated claims - with the 'cultural revolution' - doing away with the old in favour of the new.)
Thread | Message Archive | Home
Replies to a couple of points made by James Souttar --
(1) Re your ideas about the quintessential nature of an information designer . . . seductively neat theory, but it doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. I don't know many of the subscribers to the list; but I don't see either you, James, or myself obsessively rearranging the colour-coded row of biros in the top pocket of our anoraks.
I speak here mainly from personal experience, and I'd be interested to hear whether others feel the same way.
I think that what makes me an information designer is the pleasure I take in problem-solving. The thought that there must be a good ('best?') way to turn this incoherent source material into something really clear and comprehensible, and the satisfaction of 'cracking it'. Sometimes, at the beginning of a project, I feel rather like a sumo wrestler (for the benefit of other readers, I don't look like one!), sizing it up and throwing salt at it before finally getting to grips. When I finally get there, it's far from dull -- it's fun!
Before I got into this, I was a research scientist. Now I love doing the more 'difficult' sort of crossword (Azed in the Observer, mainly). I think both of these points are relevant.
(2) Re 'Walking on the dark side'
As you know, James, I share your views about the spuriously 'academic' jargonising of information design. 'Nuff said.
I think it's always dangerous to assume that what one does for a living is for the general benefit of humanity. When I did biomedical research, people often said something to the effect of 'it must be wonderful doing something so worthwhile.' Well, not really -- it was badly paid, often boring, and without job security. And the anti-cancer drug I worked on for a while had horrendous side-effects.
Let's not entertain such lofty ideals. We do this for a living. We all have our own lines that we draw -- I would never do any work related to military applications, for example -- and I hope we'd all refuse anything obviously unethical. But let's not kid ourselves -- we're no philanthropists.
Thread | Message Archive | Home
Yes! It could happen as James Souttar so eloquently describes it. There is nothing in the technology that would prevent us from doing that with it. On the other hand, neither is there anything to prevent us from *actually* "deliver(ing) the 'humanized' products of a systems culture, not merely in the debased sense of comforting deceptions but in the original sense of a culture adapted to human needs.
What we clearly need are social and political arrangements that will enable us to run the technology as part of the operation of an open society. In such a context, critics like Souttar and those he cites will be able to express their views and those of us who encounter them can consider what we can do, individually and in our various social connections, to bring about a better result.
In short, we need healthy, open, democratic social contexts in order to have a prayer of directing any technology along constructive paths. The way to address abuses of technology springing from military and corporate settings is to fix the sick, closed, autocratic, and inhumane social settings. The people in and around those settings can then fix the technology they use.
So, what social arrangements can professionals in information design establish to help direct our corner of the technological universe along humane paths?
Thread | Message Archive | Home
In response to various other postings, I wanted to add my own 2 cents to the discussion. Although I agree that our primary goal as information designers is to communicate, not to "make the world a better place", I think several posters have been far too quick to dismiss the latter issue.
In any form of employment, including information design, there are three ethical questions we must each address. What is your ethical responsibility to your employer, to yourself, and to society at large? Some ethicists would add a fourth responsibility, to your profession, to the list; that's a personal judgment call, and I'll add it here for your consideration.
How far do we carry our consideration of ethics? It's your call. I don't believe that one code of ethics fits everyone and all situations, but if we want to consider ourselves professionals, we can't simply disregard ethical issues. Neither can we entirely subordinate the performance of our task to a higher ethical calling. The correct approach would seem to be to strike a balance somewhere in the middle that satisfies all three (or four) ethical responsibilities. Something to ponder.
Thread | Message Archive | Home
Ben Shneiderman (May 10, 1996)
I am pleased to see the discussion on social impact...I hope this conference will be interesting for some of you...Ben Shneiderman <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
SFC Update, April 29th, 1996
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Society and the Future of Computing '96
June 16-19, 1996, Snowbird, Utah, USA
http://www.lanl.gov/SFC
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
The conference structure includes keynote speakers, panels of invited speakers, Net-connected poster presentations, debates, and workshops. The intent is to share ideas in a multidisciplinary environment for mutual enrichment and learning, ultimately to affect the directions of computer science research and applications for the benefit of all.
In This Issue:
Early Registration Discount Deadline is May 1st!
Registration is open and you are encouraged to take advantage of the early registration discount and save $100! To receive this savings, use the electronic registration form at http://www.lanl.gov/SFC/96/reginfo.html#Regform by May 1st, 1996.
Poster Deadline Extended to May 19th
Due to the overwhelming response and the need to accommodate the many people who want to present Internet-connected posters at the conference, the deadline for proposals has been extended. THERE ARE STILL SOME BOOTHS AVAILABLE, SO PLEASE COME AND SHARE YOUR WORK AND IDEAS! See the "Participation Opportuntities" page at: http://www.lanl.gov/SFC/96/participation.html for details.
*** Each poster booth will have Internet connections so you can include live demonstrations in your poster. ***
High-speed Televideo Technology to Link England and Snowbird
An entire technical session of the conference will be conducted with the panelists and moderator located in Leicester, UK, and the attendees in Snowbird, Utah, USA. Dedicated high-speed ISDN televideo systems will provide high-quality two-way audio and video through which the discussion will be shared.
Highlights of Finalized Program
The conference program is now finalized as detailed on the Web agenda page (http://www.lanl.gov/SFC/96/program.html).
Here are some highlights:
Keynote Panel of Industry Laboratory Leaders:
Moderator: Rick Light, Los Alamos National Laboratory
Panelists:
Keynote Speakers:
Technical Sessions:
WORK, PRODUCTIVITY, JOBS:
"Working in the Networked Economy: Issues" Moderator: Gary Chapman, University of Texas, Austin
Panelists:
"Working in the Networked Economy: Opportunities" Moderator: Phil Agre, University of California, San Diego
Panelists:
CULTURE AND IDENTITY:
"The European Information Society" A Video Teleconferenced Panel Between Snowbird, Utah, USA, and Leicester, UK, with High Speed ISDN Audio and Video. Moderator: Terry Bynum, Southern Connecticut State University
Panelists:
"If Anyone Can Publish, Who Will Edit?" Moderator: Karen Coyle, University of California, Berkeley
Panelists:
DEMOCRACY AND CITIZENSHIP:
"On the Internet No One Knows You're a Dog" Moderator: Brenda Allen, University of Colorado
Panelists:
"Government On-Line: Report Card and Futures" Moderator: Charles N. Brownstein, Corporation for National Research Initiatives
Panelists:
"Closing Session" Moderator: Blaise Liffick, Millersville University of Pennsylvania
Panelists:
A Lively Debate:
"Contrasting Visions of the Future" Moderator: Allan Kuchinsky, Hewlett-Packard Labs
Debaters:
Discussant:
Workshops:
Questions? Any questions or comments you might have may be addressed to sfc96@lanl.gov
Thread | Message Archive | Home