skip to main content
10.1145/3080556.3080561acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageslimitsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open Access

The Limits of HCD: Reimagining the Anthropocentricity of ISO 9241-210

Published:22 June 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

Human-centred design (HCD) is just that: human-centred. As we approach the limits of Earth's biophysical systems, it no longer feels appropriate to place humans at the centre of design decisions. Yet HCD and its ISO---ISO-9241-210:2010---continue to be powerful and popular tools within many computing and design departments, as well as in their affiliated industries. These design approaches are perpetuating the trend of incremental improvements to the living standards of the already privileged and digitally connected whilst ignoring the broader environmental and socio-political effects of digital technologies. In this paper, we attempt to reimagine HCD and its ISO by drawing on fields and concepts such as sustainable interaction design (SID), animal-computer interaction (ACI), and object oriented ontology (OOO). Through this, we contribute a preliminary set of proposals about what needs to change with HCD and its ISO. We close by discussing the ISO development process and suggesting routes for environmentally concerned researchers to influence the evolution of HCD's ISO.

References

  1. Oliver Bates, Mike Hazas, Adrian Friday, Janine Morley, and Adrian K. Clear. 2014. Towards an Holistic View of the Energy and Environmental Impacts of Domestic Media and IT. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1173--1182. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Eli Blevis. 2007. Sustainable Interaction Design: Invention & Disposal, Renewal & Reuse. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 503--512. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Ian Bogost. 2012. Alien Phenomenology, or What It's Like to Be a .ing. University of Minnesota Press. h.p://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/j.c.tsdq9Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Paula L. Brown. 2016. Human-Centered Design in the US Federal Government. Government Innovators Network Blog (2016). https://www.innovations.harvard.edu/awards-programs/bright-ideasGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Jay Chen. 2016. A Strategy for Limits-aware Computing. In Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Computing Within Limits (LIMITS '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 1, 6 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Adrian K. Clear, Mike Hazas, Janine Morley, Adrian Friday, and Oliver Bates. 2013. Domestic Food and Sustainable Design: A Study of University Student Cooking and Its Impacts. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2447--2456. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Carl DiSalvo, Phoebe Sengers, and Hrönn Brynjarsdó.ir. 2010. Mapping the Landscape of Sustainable HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1975--1984. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Susan Gasson. 2003. Human-centered vs. user-centered approaches to information system design. JITTA : Journal of Information Technology theory and Application 5, 2 (2003), 29--46. https://search.proquest.com/docview/200009053?accountid=11979 Copyright - Copyright Ken Pe.ers, DBA JITTA : Journal of Information Technology .eory & Application 2003; Document feature - references; Last updated - 2010-06-06.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Joseph Giacomin. 2014. What Is Human Centred Design? .e Design Journal 17, 4 (2014), 606--623.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Graham Harman. 2015. Object-Oriented Ontology. Palgrave Macmillan UK, London, 401--409.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Mike Hazas, Janine Morley, Oliver Bates, and Adrian Friday. 2016. Are there Limits to Growth in Data Traffic?: On Time Use, Data Generation and Speed. In Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Computing Within Limits (LIMITS '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 14, 5 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Rudiger Heimgartner. 2014. ISO 9241-210 and Culture? -- the Impact of Culture on the Standard Usability Engineering Process. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 39--48.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. International Organization for Standardization. 2017. How we develop standards. https://www.iso.org/developing-standards.html. (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. International Organization for Standardization. 2017. ISO 9241--210:2010. https://www.iso.org/standard/52075.html. (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. International Organization for Standardization. 2017. We're ISO: we develop and publish International Standards. https://www.iso.org/standards.html. (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. ISO 9241--210:2010(en) 2010. Ergonomics of human-system interaction -- Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems. Standard. International Organization for Standardization, Brussels.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Alan J. Jamieson, Tamas Malkocs, Stuart B. Piertney, Toyonobu Fujii, and Zulin Zhang. 2017. Bioaccumulation of persistent organic pollutants in the deepest ocean fauna. Nature Ecology and Evolution 1, 0051 (2017), 31--4.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Jonathan Lazar, Julio Abascal, Simone Barbosa, Jeremy Barksdale, Batya Friedman, Jens Grossklags, Jan Gulliksen, Je. Johnson, Tom McEwan, L. Martinez- Normand, Wibke Michalk, Janice Tsai, Gerrit van der Veer, Hans von Axelson, AkeWalldius, Gill Whitney, Marco Winckler, VolkerWulf, Elizabeth F. Churchill, Lorrie Cranor, Janet Davis, Alan Hedge, Harry Hochheiser, Juan Pablo Hourcade,Clayton Lewis, Lisa Nathan, Fabio Paterno, Blake Reid, Whitney .esenbery, Ted Selker, and Brian Wentz. 2016. Human-Computer Interaction and International Public Policymaking: A Framework for Understanding and Taking Future Actions. Foundations and Trends® Human-Computer Interaction 9, 2 (2016), 69--149. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Jonathan Lazar, Julio Abascal, Janet Davis, Vanessa Evers, Jan Gulliksen, Joaquim Jorge, Tom McEwan, Fabio Paterno, Hans Persson, Raquel Prates, Hans von Axelson, Marco Winckler, and Volker Wulf. 2012. HCI Public Policy Activities in 2012: A 10-country Discussion. interactions 19, 3 (May 2012), 78--81. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Joseph Galen Lindley, Paul Coulton, and Rachel Cooper. 2017. Why the internet of things needs object orientated ontology.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Clara Mancini. 2013. Animal-computer Interaction (ACI): Changing Perspective on HCI, Participation and Sustainability. In CHI '13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2227--2236. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Clara Mancini. 2017. Towards an animal-centred ethics for Animal.Computer Interaction. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 98 (2017), 221 --233. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Timothy Morton. 2011. Here Comes Everything: .e Promise of Object-Oriented Ontology. Parle 19, 2 (2011), 163--190.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. W.M.S. Mussell and R.L Burch. 1958. The principles of humane experimental technique. Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD. h.p://altweb.jhsph.edu/pubs/books/humane exp/het-tocGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Nature News. 2017. Daring deep-sea explorers, armyworm offensive and GM-rice the.. Nature 452 (2017), 396--397.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Donald A. Norman. 2005. HCD harmful? A Clarification. Don Norman: Designing for People (Sept. 2005). h.p://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/hcd harmful a clari.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Donald A. Norman. 2005. Human-centered Design Considered Harmful. interactions 12, 4 (July 2005), 14--19. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Natalya F. Noy and Deborah L. McGuinness. 2001. Ontology Development 101: A Guide to Creating Your First Ontology. Technical Report. Stanford Knowledge Systems Laboratory Technical Report KSL-01-05 and Stanford Medical Informatics Technical Report SMI-2001-0880.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Daniel Pargman, Elina Eriksson, and Adrian Friday. 2016. Limits to the Sharing Economy. In Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Computing Within Limits (LIMITS '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 12, 7 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Birgit Penzenstadler, Ankita Raturi, Debra Richardson, M. S. Silberman, and Bill Tomlinson. 2015. Collapse (and other futures) so.ware engineering. First Monday 20, 8 (2015). http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/6123Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Chris Preist, Daniel Schien, and Eli Blevis. 2016. Understanding and Mitigating the E.ects of Device and Cloud Service Design Decisions on the Environmental Footprint of Digital Infrastructure. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1324--1337. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Jean-Loup Rault, Sarah Webber, and Marcus Carter. 2015. Cross-disciplinary Perspectives on Animal Welfare Science and Animal-computer Interaction. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology (ACE '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 56, 5 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Paulo Realpe-Muñoz, Cesar A. Collazos, Julio Hurtado, Toni Granollers, and Jaime Velasco-Medina. 2016. An Integration of Usable Security and User Authentication into the ISO 9241--210 and ISO/IEC 25010:2011. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 65--76.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Christian Remy, Silke Gegenbauer, and Elaine M. Huang. 2015. Bridging the theory-Practice Gap: Lessons and Challenges of Applying the A.achment Framework for Sustainable HCI Design. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1305--1314. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Christian Remy and Elaine M. Huang. 2015. Addressing the Obsolescence of End-User Devices: Approaches from the Field of Sustainable HCI. In ICT Innovations for Sustainability, Lorenz M. Hilty and Bernard Aebischer (Eds.). Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Vol. 310. Springer International Publishing, 257--267.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. David Roedl, Will Odom, and Eli Blevis. 2017. .ree Principles of Sustainable Interaction Design, Revisited. Routledge. https://doi.org/forthcomingGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Eleanor Ainge Roy. 2017. New Zealand river granted same legal rights as human being. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/16/new-zealand-rivergranted-same-legal-rights-as-human-being. (2017). {38} Eric Schweikardt. 2009. SUSTAINABLY OURS: User Centered is o. Center. interactions 16, 3 (May 2009), 12--15. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. M. S. Silberman. 2015. Information systems for the age of consequences. First Monday 20, 8 (2015). http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/6128Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Marc Steen. 2011. Tensions in human-centred design. CoDesign 7, 1 (2011), 45--60.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Will Ste.en, Katherine Richardson, Johan Rockstrm, Sarah E. Cornell, Ingo Fetzer, Elena M. Benne., Reine.e Biggs, Stephen R. Carpenter, Wim de Vries, Cynthia A. de Wit, Carl Folke, Dieter Gerten, Jens Heinke, Georgina M. Mace, Linn M. Persson, Veerabhadran Ramanathan, Belinda Reyers, and Sverker Srlin. 2015. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347, 6223 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Yolande Strengers, Larissa Nicholls, and Cecily Maller. 2016. Curious energy consumers: Humans and nonhumans in assemblages of household practice. Journal of Consumer Culture 16, 3 (2016), 761--780.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Vanessa .omas, Christian Remy, Michael Hazas, and Oliver Bates. 2017. HCI and environmental public policy: opportunities for engagement. In CHI '17 Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. May 06--11, 2017, Denver, CO, USA. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Zoe Todd. 2014. Fish pluralities: Human-animal relations and sites of engagement in Paulatuuq, Arctic Canada. .tudes/Inuit/Studies 38, 1--2 (2014), 217--238.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Je. Tollefson. 2017. Giant crack in Antarctic ice shelf spotlights advances in glaciology. Nature 452 (2017), 402--403.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Sandrine Tranchard. 2016. New ISO standard to help communities manage sustainable development. https://www.iso.org/news/2016/07/Ref2101.html. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Heli K. Vaataja and Emilia K. Pesonen. 2013. Ethical Issues and Guidelines when Conducting HCI Studies with Animals. In CHI '13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2159--2168. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. John Vidal. 2011. Bolivia enshrines natural world's rights with equal status forMother Earth. .e Guardian (2011). https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/10/bolivia-enshrines-natural-worlds-rightsGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. The Limits of HCD: Reimagining the Anthropocentricity of ISO 9241-210

            Recommendations

            Comments

            Login options

            Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

            Sign in

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader