Design for the Long Now: Temporal Tools for Navigating Ethics in HCI
Authors: 
Jacinta Jardine, Camille Nadal, Marguerite Barry, Daniel Snow, Fiona McDermott, Sarah RobinsonAuthors Info & Claims
Pages 433 - 437
Abstract
Design for the Long Now is a project inspired by the Long Now Foundation, a nonprofit promoting long-term thinking and responsibility in the face of rapidly accelerating technology and culture. This one-day workshop will provide a space for HCI researchers and technology designers to reflect on the timelines that govern their work and explore where and how ethical issues emerge. In drawing on real-world ethical dilemmas that participants have experienced, we hope to better understand how power dynamics and hierarchies can constrain or accelerate ethical decision making and consider the wider context and systems surrounding these processes. Through playful, creative experimentation, community building, and the use of non-violent communication and systems thinking tools, this workshop aims to build participants’ agency and inspire collective action. We also hope to promote change in the design practices and norms that perpetuate harm.
References
[1]
Jeffrey Bardzell and Shaowen Bardzell. 2016. Humanistic HCI. Interactions 23, 2 (2016), 20–29.
[2]
Shaowen Bardzell. 2010. Feminist HCI: Taking stock and outlining an agenda for design. Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. - Proc. 2, (2010), 1301–1310.
[3]
M. Barry, A. Kerr, and O. Smith. 2020. Ethics on the ground: from principles to practice. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 688–688.
[4]
Eric P.S. Baumer and M. Six Silberman. 2011. When the implication is not to design (technology). Proc. SIGCHI Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. (2011), 2271–2274.
[5]
Gabrielle Benabdallah, Michael W. Beach, Nathanael Elias Mengist, Daniela Rosner, Kavita S. Philip, and Lucy Suchman. 2023. The Politics of Imaginaries: Probing Humanistic Inquiry in HCI. In DIS 2023 Designing Interactive Systems Conference, 131–134.
[6]
B. Bennaceur, A., Ghezzi, C., Kramer, J., & Nuseibeh. 2024. Responsible Software Engineering: Requirements and Goals. In Introduction to Digital Humanism: A Textbook, Allison Stanger Hannes Werthner, Carlo Ghezzi, Jeff Kramer, Julian Nida-Rümelin, Bashar Nuseibeh, Erich Prem (ed.). Springer.
[7]
Elettra Bietti. 2020. From ethics washing to ethics bashing: A view on tech ethics from within moral philosophy. FAT* 2020 - Proc. 2020 Conf. Fairness, Accountability, Transpar. (2020), 210–219.
[8]
Mark Blythe, Kristina Andersen, Rachel Clarke, and Peter Wright. 2016. Anti-solutionist strategies: Seriously silly design fiction. Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. - Proc. (2016), 4968–4978.
[9]
Tore Bonsaksen, Mary Ruffolo, Daicia Price, Janni Leung, Hilde Thygesen, Gary Lamph, Isaac Kabelenga, and Amy Østertun Geirdal. 2023. Associations between social media use and loneliness in a cross-national population: do motives for social media use matter? Heal. Psychol. Behav. Med. 11, 1 (2023).
[10]
Stewart Brand. 2000. The Clock of the Long Now: Time and Responsibility. Basic Books.
[11]
Margot Brereton, Paul Roe, Ronald Schroeter, and Anita Lee Hong. 2014. Beyond ethnography: Engagement and reciprocity as foundations for design research out here. Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. - Proc. (2014), 1183–1186.
[12]
Patrick Brodie. 2020. Climate extraction and supply chains of data. Media, Cult. Soc. 42, 7–8 (2020), 1095–1114.
[13]
Rafael A. Calvo and Dorian Peters. 2014. Positive Computing: Technology for wellbeing and human potential. MIT Press, Cambridge, London.
[14]
Centre for Humane Technology. 2023. Centre for Humane Technology. Retrieved February 14, 2023 from https://www.humanetech.com/
[15]
Sasha Costanza-Chock. 2020. Design Justice: Community-Led Practices to Build the Worlds We Need. MIT Press.
[16]
Kimberly Do, Rock Yuren Pang, Jiachen Jiang, and Katharina Reinecke. 2023. “That's important, but...”: How Computer Science Researchers Anticipate Unintended Consequences of Their Research Innovations. Association for Computing Machinery.
[17]
Lynn Dombrowski, Ellie Harmon, and Sarah Fox. 2016. Social justice-oriented interaction design: Outlining key design strategies and commitments. DIS 2016 - Proc. 2016 ACM Conf. Des. Interact. Syst. Fuse (2016), 656–671.
[18]
Paul Dourish. 2006. Implications for design. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’06), 541–550.
[19]
Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby. 2001. Design Noir: The Secret Life of Electronic Objects. Springer Science & Business Media.
[20]
Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby. 2013. Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
[21]
Abigail Durrant and David Kirk. 2018. On Ethical Responsiveness: Being Answerable to Others as an HCI Researcher. Interact. Comput. 30, 2 (2018), 99–115.
[22]
Nathan Ensmenger. 2021. The Cloud Is a Factory. In Your Computer Is on Fire, and Kavita Philip. Thomas S. Mullaney, Benjamin Peters, Mar Hicks (ed.). MIT Press, 29–50.
[23]
Frederik Federspiel, Ruth Mitchell, Asha Asokan, Carlos Umana, and David McCoy. 2023. Threats by artificial intelligence to human health and human existence. BMJ Glob. Heal. 8, 5 (2023), 11–16.
[24]
Tom Feltwell, Shaun Lawson, Enrique Encinas, Conor Linehan, Ben Kirman, Deborah Maxwell, Tom Jenkins, and Stacey Kuznetsov. 2018. “Grand visions” for post-capitalist human-computer interaction. Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. - Proc. 2018-April, (2018), 1–8.
[25]
B J Fogg and Jim Euchner. 2019. Designing for Behavior Change — New Models and Moral Issues. Res. Manag. 62, 5 (2019), 14–19.
[26]
Sarah Fox, Catherine Lim, Tad Hirsch, and Daniela K. Rosner. 2020. Accounting for design activism: On the positionality and politics of designerly intervention. Des. Issues 36, 1 (2020), 5–18.
[27]
Christopher Frauenberger, Marjo Rauhala, and Geraldine Fitzpatrick. 2016. In-Action Ethics. Interact. Comput. 29, 2 (2016), 220–236.
[28]
Batya Friedman and David G. Hendry. 2019. Value Sensitive Design: Shaping Technology with Moral Imagination. MIT Press.
[29]
Batya Friedman and David G. Hendry. 2012. The Envisioning Cards: A toolkit for catalyzing humanistic and technical imaginations. Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. - Proc. (2012), 1145–1148.
[30]
Anne Galloway and Catherine Caudwell. 2018. Speculative design as research method: From answers to questions and “staying with the trouble.” In Undesign: Critical Practices at the Intersection of Art and Design, Gretchen Coombs, Andrew McNamara and Gavin Sade (eds.). Routledge, 85–96.
[31]
Rachael Garrett, Kristina Popova, Claudia Núñez-Pacheco, Thórhildur Ásgeirsdóttir, Airi Lampinen, and Kristina Höök. 2023. Felt Ethics: Cultivating Ethical Sensibility in Design Practice. Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. - Proc. (2023).
[32]
Madeleine J. George, Michael A. Russell, Joy R. Piontak, and Candice L. Odgers. 2018. Concurrent and Subsequent Associations Between Daily Digital Technology Use and High-Risk Adolescents’ Mental Health Symptoms. Child Dev. 89, 1 (2018), 78–88.
[33]
Coen van der Giesen, Stefano Cucurachi, Jeroen Guinée, Gert Jan Kramer, and Arnold Tukker. 2020. A critical view on the current application of LCA for new technologies and recommendations for improved practice. J. Clean. Prod. 259, March (2020), 120904.
[34]
Nava Haghighi, Matthew Jörke, Yousif Mohsen, Andrea Cuadra, and James A. Landay. 2023. A Workshop-Based Method for Navigating Value Tensions in Collectively Speculated Worlds. In Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’23), ACM, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 1676–1692.
[35]
Lars Hallnäs and Johan Redström. 2001. Slow technology - Designing for reflection. Pers. Ubiquitous Comput. 5, 3 (2001), 201–212.
[36]
Conor Healy. 2021. Uyghur Surveillance & Ethnicity Detection Analytics in China. Bethlehem, PA, USA.
[37]
Lilly Irani, Janet Vertesi, Paul Dourish, Kavita Philip, and Rebecca E. Grinter. 2010. Postcolonial computing: A lens on design and development. Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. - Proc. 2, (2010), 1311–1320.
[38]
Leon Karlsen Johannessen, Martina Maria Keitsch, and Ida Nilstad Pettersen. 2019. Speculative and critical design - Features, methods, and practices. Proc. Int. Conf. Eng. Des. ICED 2019-Augus, AUGUST (2019), 1623–1631.
[39]
Nicola Jones. 2018. How to stop data centres from gobbling up the world's electricity. Nature 561, September (2018), 163–166.
[40]
Laewoo Kang, Steven Jackson, and Trevor Pinch. 2022. The Electronicists: Techno-aesthetic Encounters for Nonlinear and Art-based Inquiry in HCI. Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. - Proc. (2022).
[41]
Aphra Kerr, Marguerite Barry, and John D. Kelleher. 2020. Expectations of artificial intelligence and the performativity of ethics: Implications for communication governance. Big Data Soc. 7, 1 (2020).
[42]
Os Keyes, Josephine Hoy, and Margaret Drouhard. 2019. Human-computer insurrection notes on an anarchist HCI. Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. - Proc. (2019), 1–13.
[43]
Boying Li, David Ji, Mengyao Fu, Chee Wee Tan, Alain Chong, and Eric T.K. Lim. 2023. Unveiling the formation of conspiracy theory on social media: A discourse analysis. J. Inf. Technol. 0, 0 (2023), 1–25.
[44]
Ann Light. 2011. HCI as heterodoxy: Technologies of identity and the queering of interaction with computers. Interact. Comput. 23, 5 (2011), 430–438.
[45]
Conor Linehan and Ben Kirman. 2014. Never mind the bollocks, I wanna be AnarCHI: A manifesto for punk HCI. Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. - Proc. (2014), 741–746.
[46]
J. McCarthy and P. Wright. 2023. The Value of Experience-Centered Design to Responsible Software Design and Engineering. Des. Issues 39, 4 (2023), 61–76.
[47]
Donella H Meadows. 2008. Thinking in Systems: A Primer. Chelsea Green Publishing.
[48]
Shi Qiu Meng, Jia Lu Cheng, Yang Yang Li, Xiao Qin Yang, Jun Wei Zheng, Xiang Wen Chang, Yu Shi, Yun Chen, Lin Lu, Yan Sun, Yan Ping Bao, and Jie Shi. 2022. Global prevalence of digital addiction in general population: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 92, January (2022), 102128.
[49]
Michael J. Muller and Allison Druin. 2012. Participatory design: The third space in human–computer interaction. In Human Computer Interaction Handbook, Julie A. Jacko (ed.). CRC Press, 1125–1153.
[50]
John Naughton. 2022. Molly Russell was trapped by the cruel algorithms of Pinterest and Instagram. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/oct/01/molly-russell-was-trapped-by-the-cruel-algorithms-of-pinterest-and-instagram
[51]
Giovanna Nunes Vilaza, Kevin Doherty, Darragh McCashin, David Coyle, Jakob Bardram, and Marguerite Barry. 2022. A Scoping Review of Ethics Across SIGCHI. DIS 2022 - Proc. 2022 ACM Des. Interact. Syst. Conf. Digit. Wellbeing (2022), 137–154.
[52]
William Odom, Richard Banks, Abigail Durrant, David Kirk, and James Pierce. 2012. Slow technology: Critical reflection and future directions. Proc. Des. Interact. Syst. Conf. DIS ’12 (2012), 816–817.
[53]
Ozge Ozduzen, Nelli Ferenczi, and Isabel Holmes. 2023. ‘Let us teach our children’: Online racism and everyday far-right ideologies on TikTok. Vis. Stud. 38, 5 (2023), 834–850.
[54]
James Pierce. 2012. Undesigning Technology: Considering the Negation of Design by Design. CHI ’12 Proc. 2012 CHI Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. (2012), 957–966.
[55]
Sarah Robinson, Nicola J. Bidwell, Roberto Cibin, Conor Linehan, Laura Maye, John McCarthy, Nadia Pantidi, and Maurizio Teli. 2021. Rural Islandness as a Lens for (Rural) HCI. ACM Trans. Comput. Interact. 28, 3 (2021).
[56]
Samar Sabie, Robert Soden, Steven Jackson, and Tapan Parikh. 2023. Unmaking as Emancipation: Lessons and Reflections from Luddism. Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. - Proc. (2023).
[57]
Samar Sabie, Katherine W. Song, Tapan Parikh, Steven Jackson, Eric Paulos, Kristina Lindstrom, Asa Stahl, Dina Sabie, Kristina Andersen, and Ron Wakkary. 2022. Unmaking@CHI: Concretizing the Material and Epistemological Practices of Unmaking in HCI. Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. - Proc. (2022).
[58]
Constance De Saint Laurent and Vlad Glăveanu. 2023. AI makes Silicon Valley's philosophy of ‘move fast and break things’ untenable. The Conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/ai-makes-silicon-valleys-philosophy-of-move-fast-and-break-things-untenable-218159
[59]
Britta Schulte, Marie Louise Juul Søndergaard, Rens Brankaert, and Kellie Morrissey. 2021. Utopian futures for sexuality, aging, and design. Interactions 28, 3 (2021), 6–8.
[60]
David A. Scott, Bart Valley, and Brooke A. Simecka. 2017. Mental Health Concerns in the Digital Age. Int. J. Ment. Health Addict. 15, 3 (2017), 604–613.
[61]
Phoebe Sengers. 2011. What I learned on Change Islands: reflections on IT and pace of life. Interactions 18, 2 (2011), 40–48.
[62]
Phoebe Sengers, John McCarthy, and Paul Dourish. 2006. Reflective HCI: Articulating an agenda for critical practice. Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. - Proc. (2006), 1683–1686.
[63]
Vishal Sharma, Neha Kumar, and Bonnie Nardi. 2023. Post-growth Human-Computer Interaction. ACM Trans. Comput. Interact. 31, 1 (2023).
[64]
Vishal Sharma, Anupriya Tuli, Asra Sakeen Wani, Anjali Karol Mohan, Bonnie Nardi, Marc Hassenzahl, Morgan Vigil-Hayes, Rikke Hagensby Jensen, Shaowen Bardzell, and Neha Kumar. 2024. Post-growth HCI Workshop @CHI. Retrieved February 13, 2024 from https://sites.google.com/view/post-growthhci/home?authuser=0
[65]
Katie Shilton. 2018. Values and Ethics in Human-Computer Interaction. Found. Trends® Human–Computer Interact. 12, 2 (2018), 107–171.
[66]
Miguel Sicart and Irina Shklovski. 2020. Pataphysical software: (Ridiculous) technological solutions for imaginary problems. DIS 2020 - Proc. 2020 ACM Des. Interact. Syst. Conf. (2020), 1859–1871.
[67]
Petr Slovak, Chris Frauenberger, and Geraldine Fitzpatrick. 2017. Reflective practicum: A framework of sensitising concepts to design for transformative reflection. Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. - Proc. 2017-May, (2017), 2696–2707.
[68]
Rebecca Solnit. 2016. Hope In The Dark: The Untold History of People Power. Canongate.
[69]
Marie Louise Juul Søndergaard, Nadia Campo Woytuk, Noura Howell, Vasiliki Tsaknaki, Karey Helms, Tom Jenkins, and Pedro Sanches. 2023. Fabulation as an Approach for Design Futuring. In Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’23), Pittsburgh, PA, 1693–1709.
[70]
Velvet Spors, Hanne Gesine Wagner, and Martin Flintham. 2021. Selling glossy, easy futures: A feminist exploration of commercial mental-health-focused self-care apps’ descriptions in the google play store. Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. - Proc. (2021).
[71]
Bernd Carsten Stahl, Job Timmermans, and Catherine Flick. 2017. Ethics of emerging information and communication technologies: On the implementation of responsible research and innovation. Sci. Public Policy 44, 3 (2017), 369–381.
[72]
John Thackara. 2013. Republic of Salivation (Michael Burton and Michiko Nitta). MOMA: DESIGN AND VIOLENCE. Retrieved October 11, 2023 from https://www.moma.org/interactives/exhibitions/2013/designandviolence/republic-of-salivation-michael-burton-and-michiko-nitta/
[73]
Vasiliki Tsaknaki, Pedro Sanches, Tom Jenkins, Noura Howell, Laurens Boer, and Afroditi Bitzouni. 2022. Fabulating Biodata Futures for Living and Knowing Together. In DIS 2022 - Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference: Digital Wellbeing, 1878–1892.
[74]
John Twomey, Didier Ching, Matthew Peter Aylett, Michael Quayle, Conor Linehan, and Gillian Murphy. 2023. Do deepfake videos undermine our epistemic trust? A thematic analysis of tweets that discuss deepfakes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. PLoS One 18, 10 October (2023).
[75]
L. Watts. 2019. Energy at the end of the world: An Orkney Islands saga. MIT Press.
[76]
David Gray Widder, Derrick Zhen, Laura Dabbish, and James Herbsleb. 2023. It's about power: What ethical concerns do software engineers have, and what do they (feel they can) do about them? In ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, ACM, Chicago, IL, USA, 467–479.
[77]
Rua Mae Williams, Louanne Boyd, and Juan E. Gilbert. 2023. Counterventions: a reparative reflection on interventionist HCI. Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. - Proc. (2023).
[78]
Mary N. Woessner, Alexander Tacey, Ariella Levinger-Limor, Alexandra G. Parker, Pazit Levinger, and Itamar Levinger. 2021. The Evolution of Technology and Physical Inactivity: The Good, the Bad, and the Way Forward. Front. Public Heal. 9, May (2021), 1–8.
[79]
Richmond Y. Wong, Karen Boyd, Jake Metcalf, and Katie Shilton. 2020. Beyond checklist approaches to ethics in design. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW, 511–517.
[80]
Richmond Y. Wong, Michael A. Madaio, and Nick Merrill. 2023. Seeing Like a Toolkit: How Toolkits Envision the Work of AI Ethics. Proc. ACM Human-Computer Interact. 7, CSCW1 (2023), 1–27.
[81]
Qian Yang, Richmond Y. Wong, Thomas Gilbert, Margaret D. Hagan, Steven Jackson, Sabine Junginger, and John Zimmerman. 2023. Designing Technology and Policy Simultaneously: Towards A Research Agenda and New Practice. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’23).
[82]
Long Now Foundation. Retrieved October 5, 2023 from https://longnow.org/
[83]
2019. UNICEF poll: More than a third of young people in 30 countries report being a victim of online bullying. New York, NY. Retrieved from https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/unicef-poll-more-third-young-people-30-countries-report-being-victim-online-bullying#:∼:text=NEW YORK%2C 4 September 2019,-General (SRSG) on Violence
Index Terms
- Design for the Long Now: Temporal Tools for Navigating Ethics in HCI
Recommendations
Moral luck and computer ethics: Gauguin in cyberspace
I argue that the problem of `moral luck' is an unjustly neglected topic within Computer Ethics. This is unfortunate given that the very nature of computer technology, its `logical malleability', leads to ever greater levels of complexity, unreliability ...
Machines and the face of ethics
In this article I try to show in what sense Emmanuel Levinas' `ethics as first philosophy' moves our ethical thinking away from what has been called `centrist ethics'. Proceeding via depictions of the structure of Levinasian ethics and including ...
Information, Ethics, and Computers: The Problem of Autonomous Moral Agents
In modern technical societies computers interact with human beings in ways that can affect moral rights and obligations. This has given rise to the question whether computers can act as autonomous moral agents. The answer to this question depends on ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
July 2024
501 pages
ISBN:9798400706325
DOI:10.1145/3656156
Copyright © 2024 Owner/Author.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.
Sponsors
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 01 July 2024
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
- Research
- Refereed limited
Funding Sources
- Science Foundation Ireland
- ADAPT Science Foundation Ireland
- D-Real Science Foundation Ireland
- Irish Research Council
- Lero Science Foundation Ireland
Conference
DIS '24
Sponsor:
DIS '24: Designing Interactive Systems Conference
July 1 - 5, 2024
IT University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 1,158 of 4,684 submissions, 25%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 211Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)211
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)53
Reflects downloads up to 24 Dec 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML FormatLogin options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in