Value-sensitive design

Human values impact people's information behavior. Imagine, for example, that a young Muslim man is interested in exploring the historical roots of jihad for a term paper. Imagine, too, that his library logs all digital reference interactions, and has a policy that if subpoenaed, such logs can be made available to law enforcement agencies. Under such conditions , this man might well decide to seek relevant information by other means, as he seeks to balance the value of access to information with other competing values such as privacy, consent, personal safety, security , and religious freedom. Despite the clear importance of values in human information behavior, the information behavior field does not yet have a comprehensive way of approaching this area. Value Sensitive Design offers one such approach. Value Sensitive Design (VSD) emerged in the 1990s as an approach to the design of information and computer systems that accounts for human values throughout the design process Two overarching goals motivate VSD: 1) to be proactive about human values in system design, and 2) to do so in a manner that is principled, comprehensive, and systematic. VSD particularly emphasizes values with moral import, including privacy, trust, human dignity, respect for person, physical and psychological well-being, informed consent, intellectual property, access, universal usability, freedom from bias, moral responsibility, and moral accountability. While emphasizing the moral perspective, VSD also accounts for usability (e.g., ease of use), conventions (e.g., standardization of technical protocols), and personal predilections (e.g., color preferences within a graphical interface). Key features of VSD involve its 368

[1]  M. Ermann,et al.  Computers, Ethics, and Society , 1990 .

[2]  J. Cooper,et al.  Sex Bias in Educational Software: The Effect of Designers' Stereotypes on the Software They Design1 , 1987 .

[3]  Helen Nissenbaum,et al.  User autonomy: who should control what and when? , 1996, CHI Conference Companion.

[4]  J. Moor What Is Computer Ethics?* , 1985, The Ethics of Information Technologies.

[5]  Brenda Laurel,et al.  Interface agents: metaphors with character , 1997 .

[6]  L. Mumford Technics and Civilization , 1934, Nature.

[7]  Maureen S. Battistella,et al.  Connections: New Ways of Working in the Networked Organization , 1991 .

[8]  John Perry,et al.  Disability, Inability and Cyberspace , 1997 .

[9]  C. Pollard,et al.  Center for the Study of Language and Information , 2022 .

[10]  Andrew Clement,et al.  A retrospective look at PD projects , 1993, CACM.

[11]  Amin Rajan,et al.  In the age of the smart machine , 1990 .

[12]  Susan King Roth The Unconsidered Ballot: How Design Effects Voting Behavior. , 1994 .

[13]  Helen Z. Margetts,et al.  Computerization and Controversy: Value Conflicts and Social Choices , 1993, J. Inf. Technol..

[14]  A. Roth The Evolution of the Labor Market for Medical Interns and Residents: A Case Study in Game Theory , 1984, Journal of Political Economy.

[15]  A. Roth,et al.  New physicians: a natural experiment in market organization , 1990, Science.

[16]  Helen Nissenbaum,et al.  Software agents and user autonomy , 1997, AGENTS '97.

[17]  Susanne Bødker,et al.  Through the Interface: A Human Activity Approach To User Interface Design , 1990 .

[18]  Batya Friedman,et al.  Minimizing bias in computer systems , 1996, SGCH.

[19]  Batya Friedman,et al.  Human values and the design of computer technology , 1997 .

[20]  Douglas Schuler,et al.  Participatory Design: Principles and Practices , 1993 .

[21]  I Mohd Taib,et al.  LOOPHOLE ALLOWS BIAS IN DISPLAYS ON COMPUTER RESERVATIONS SYSTEMS , 1990 .

[22]  John C. Thomas Steps toward universal access with a communications company , 1997 .

[23]  H. Nissenbaum Accountability in a computerized society , 1997 .

[24]  I. Grief,et al.  Computer Supported Cooperative Work: A Book of Readings , 1988 .

[25]  Rob Kling,et al.  Social Analyses of Computing: Theoretical Perspectives in Recent Empirical Research , 1980, CSUR.

[26]  C. Gould,et al.  The Information Web , 1989 .

[27]  John Ladd,et al.  Computers and moral responsibility: a framework for an ethical analysis , 1991 .

[28]  Pelle Ehn,et al.  Work-oriented design of computer artifacts , 1989 .

[29]  John C. Tang Eliminating a hardware switch: weighing economics and values in a design decision , 1997 .

[30]  L. Suchman Plans and situated actions , 1987 .

[31]  Philip E. Agre,et al.  Social Choice about Privacy: Intelligent Vehicle‐highway Systems in the United States , 1994 .

[32]  Lucy A. Suchman,et al.  Reflections on a Work-Oriented Design Project , 1996, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[33]  Sarah Kuhn Design for people at work , 1996 .

[34]  T. Peters Computerization and Controversy: Value Conflicts and Social Choices (2nd Ed.), edited by Rob Kling , 1996, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[35]  Norbert Wiener,et al.  The human use of human beings - cybernetics and society , 1988 .

[36]  Ronald M. Baecker,et al.  Readings in Groupware and Computer-Supported Cooperative Work: Assisting Human-Human Collaboration , 1992 .

[37]  Helen Nissenbaum,et al.  Minimizing bias in computer systems , 1995, CHI '95.

[38]  Batya Friedman,et al.  Computing and social responsibility: a collection of course syllabi , 1990 .

[39]  B. Shneiderman,et al.  Social impact statements: engaging public participation in information technology design , 1996, CQL '96.

[40]  L. Suchman Do categories have politics? The language/action perspective reconsidered , 1993 .

[41]  Terry Trickett,et al.  Design at Work , 1992 .

[42]  Helen Nissenbaum,et al.  Bias in computer systems , 1996, TOIS.

[43]  Batya Friedman,et al.  Human agency and responsible computing: Implications for computer system design , 1992, J. Syst. Softw..

[44]  Adina Schwartz,et al.  Reason and Morality , 1979 .

[45]  Thomas W. Malone,et al.  Experiments with Oval: a radically tailorable tool for cooperative work , 1992 .