deibeluw edu Libraries Katherine Deibel Ph D University

deibel@uw. edu Libraries Katherine Deibel, Ph. D University of Washington @metageeky University of Washington Libraries Value Sensitive Design 1 Mashcat Boston 2016 -01 -13

Motivation #mashcat discussions have brought up the need to better understand address diversity issues. In particular is recognizing the need to re-design: § Cataloging methods to better reflect identities, cultures, and ever-evolving languages § Library technology to facilitate these changes as well as promoting discovery of these issues Value Sensitive Design may help us achieve these goals 2 Mashcat Boston 2016 -01 -13

What is Value Sensitive Design? A design methodology to account for and incorporate human values throughout the design process § Developed by Batya Friedman § Expands upon traditional user-centered design efforts Key Principles: § Human values § Interactional approach § Direct and indirect stakeholders § Cross-disciplinary, tripartite methodology 3 Mashcat Boston 2016 -01 -13

Principle: Human Values A value is a concept or aspect that a person or group of people judge as important in life. Examples: § Privacy § Human welfare § Freedom from harm § Diversity 4 Mashcat Boston § Community § Trust § Sense of Identity § Literacy 2016 -01 -13

Principle: Interactional Perspective Many scholars have debated the relationship between society/culture and technology usage: § Some argue that society/culture dictates tech usage § Others argue that tech usage shapes our culture VSD argues that: § Neither direction dominates the other § The two are engaged in a complex, mutual dynamic Fans of Bruno Latour should recognize this view. 5 Mashcat Boston 2016 -01 -13

Principle: Stakeholders, Not Users User-centered design focuses primarily on those who use a technology and not necessarily any broader impact. VSD considers a broader notion of stakeholders: § A stakeholder is anyone affected by a technology § Direct stakeholders are those who use the technology (e. g. doctors using a patient database) § Indirect stakeholders do not use the technology but are still impacted (e. g. patients in the database) 6 Mashcat Boston 2016 -01 -13

Principle: Tripartite Methodology Conceptual Investigation Empirical Investigation – Identify relevant values and stakeholders – Confirm and refine values and stakeholders – Philosophy/law informed – Social science methods Technical Investigation – Design and evaluate technology – Engineering methods 7 Mashcat Boston 2016 -01 -13

Applications of VSD § Urban development modeling/simulation software for policy negotiation and deliberation. § Informed consent regarding privacy and tracking via web browser cookies § The importance of personal musical devices among homeless youth § Why adults with dyslexia and other reading disabilities rarely use assistive reading technologies 8 Mashcat Boston 2016 -01 -13

Value-Theme Literature Analysis Heat Map 9 Mashcat Boston 2016 -01 -13

My Doctoral Work Conceptual / Empirical Investigations: § Stakeholder Brainstorming § Value-Theme Literature Analysis Empirical Investigations: § Case Studies: Online Discussion Threads on Dyslexia § Case Studies: Interviews with Adults with Dyslexia Technical Investigations: § Value-Based Reviews of Existing Technologies § Value-Guided Design Guidelines § Calico: Socially-Flexible Reading Tools and Support 10 Mashcat Boston 2016 -01 -13

Finding: Invisibility Hinders Diffusion 11 Mashcat Boston 2016 -01 -13

Interview Confirmation Nigel (M, 24, childhood diagnosis) When asked if he would use an assistive reading device that would visibly identify him as having dyslexia: “I wouldn’t mind using it at home, but I would never use it for work. I actually think it’s detrimental to tell my employers I’m dyslexic… people just end up treating you differently. ” 12 Mashcat Boston 2016 -01 -13

Value-Based Design Recommendations § ATs must support reading (Literacy) § Support acquisition of digital texts (Access) § Typography matters (Access, Autonomy, Choice, Literacy) § Control disclosure due to technology usage (Identity, Normalcy, Privacy) § Provide features to manage different usage contexts (Community, Normalcy, Privacy) § Provide multiple forms of accommodations (Access, Choice) § Provide features to facilitate usage negotiations with other stakeholder groups (Access, Fairness, Privacy) § Consider open-source to mitigate costs (Access, Fairness) § Design for all readers (Fairness, Literacy, Normalcy) 13 Mashcat Boston 2016 -01 -13

Strengths of Value Sensitive Design § Respecting users, ethics, etc. is inherent. § Ready avenues for researchers of different backgrounds to collaborate on the same project § Encouragement to go beyond disciplinary boxes: How often do CS papers mention Habermas’s theory of communicative action? 14 Mashcat Boston 2016 -01 -13

Weaknesses of Value Sensitive Design Most VSD projects have been conducted by engineers and not researchers from other fields. VSD does not have good protocols to avoid being swamped by too many values or stakeholders. Several VSD projects do have an air of “savior-ness” about them, especially some developing world work. First-generation VSD implicitly assumes all values are positive and should be supported. 15 Mashcat Boston 2016 -01 -13

Opportunities for Mashcat and Libraries To the best of my knowledge, VSD has not been applied to library practices nor library technologies. Mashcat’s interest in bridging cataloging and technology seems a natural fit for VSD’s interdisciplinary nature. VSD will also allow us to discuss the myriad challenges regarding diversity and cataloging issues. It’s a worth a try if you ask me. 16 Mashcat Boston 2016 -01 -13

Recommended References Borning, A. , Friedman, B. , Davis, J. , & Lin, P. (2005). Informing public deliberation: Value sensitive design of indicators for a large-scale urban simulation. In Proceedings of the ninth conference on European conference on computer supported cooperative work (pp. 449– 468). New York: Springer. Verlag. Deibel, K. (2011). Understanding and Supporting the Adoption of Assistive Technologies by Adults with Reading Disabilities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. Friedman, B. , Howe, D. C. , & Felten, E. (2002). Informed consent in the Mozilla browser: Implementing value-sensitive design. In Proceedings of the 35 th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (pp. 247– 256). Los Alamitos, CA, USA: IEEE Computer Society. Friedman, B. , Kahn, P. H. , Jr. , & Borning, A. (2006). Value sensitive design and information systems. In P. Zhang & D. Galletta (Eds. ), Human-computer interaction in management information systems: Foundations (pp. 348– 372). Armonk, NY, USA: M. E. Sharpe. Latour, B. (1992). Where are the missing masses, the sociology of mundane artefacts. Bijerker, WE & Law, J. (1992). Eds. , Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change. MIT Press, Cambridge, 255 -258. Woelfer, J. (2012). The role of music in the lives of homeless young people in Seattle WA and Vancouver BC. Human Factors in Computing Systems CHI '12 Extended Abstracts, 955 -958. 17 Mashcat Boston 2016 -01 -13

Acknowledgments I would like to thank the following for this talk § Dr. Alan Borning for encouraging me to look at VSD for my doctoral work § The UW Libraries for travel funding and opportunities § The #mashcat twitter community for encouraging me to share VSD at this workshop § And Susie, for her feline approval of my dissertation 18 Mashcat Boston 2016 -01 -13