Introduction to Sustainability and Interaction Design

           

            Currently, the push for sustainability seems to be sweeping the globe like some new fad.  But what if I told you that the idea of sustainable design has been a work in progress for over 50 years? The theory of sustainable design was born in response to the numerous unsustainable procedures and processes that yielded environmental hazards such as non-biodegradable plastic products and more recently technological waste.  (Crocker 1) When I was reading the first chapter of the very accurate and well-written book, Interaction Design: beyond human-computer interaction I found myself questioning why there was no talk of considering the environment in addition to the consumer.  I see Mother Nature no differently than another consumer of a product.  If we mistreat a user, they become discouraged or angry.  Similarly, if we abuse the environment, we will lose its benefits and resources.

            Eli Blevis seems to agree.  He coined the term “Sustainable Interaction Design (SID)” to describe the perspective that sustainability should be the new focus of interaction design.  He further defines design as “an act of choosing among or informing choices of future ways of being.” (Blevis 503). He identifies that within our commitment to making decisions for the future should lay an obligation to maintaining the environment.  To do this SID must aim to link invention and disposal as well as promote both renewal and reuse.  Interaction designers utilize traditional design principles to assist in the thinking process when creating a user experience.  However, the universal design principles of “visibility, feedback, constraints, consistency, and affordance” (Preece, 26) are only concerned with the first user’s experience and how easy, efficient and straightforward the product is to use.  While valid, these elementary concepts leave no room for consideration of the longevity of the product, the potential successive users if the ownership is transferred, and what happens to it after it is made obsolete by another invention.

            For this reason, I believe that the paradigm of design principles must shift to incorporate sustainable thinking and put a greater focus on sustainable design.  If “design is about choices that lead to sustainable futures” (Blevis 505) like Blevis says, then the traditional plastic building blocks we employ to help us build new interfaces and systems must be replaced with a more environmentally conscious rubric and a set of guidelines.  We cannot afford to keep designing and creating without keeping the environment in the forefront.  The planet’s resources are by no means infinite, and we fail to consider the negative impact aesthetically pleasing and ultra-usable design can possess. 

            So is it really worth designing a brand new laptop if consumers cannot upgrade and are forced to buy an entirely new product?  Does the economic gain triumph over the death of a piece technology that will now populate a landfill?  I’m not saying that a company must throw all profits to the wind in favor of sustainable design, but I firmly believe that society can find a happy medium by looking to balance usability and reusability.

Works Cited

Blevis, Eli. "Sustainable Interaction Design: Invention & Disposal, Renewal & Reuse." Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '07 (2007): n. pag. Web. 12 Oct. 2016.

Crocker, Robert. "What Is History and Theory for Sustainable Design Education?" 2nd International Conference on Design Education (2010): n. pag. Web. 12 Oct. 2016.

Preece, Jenny, Yvonne Rogers, and Helen Sharp. "Chapter 1: What Is Interaction Design?" Interaction Design: Beyond Human-computer Interaction. New York, NY: J. Wiley & Sons, 2002. N. pag. Print.

Sustainable Interaction Design Principles

           

             If design needs to be more sustainable, how should the principles change to reflect reusability and renewability?  In Sustainable Interaction Design: Invention & Disposal, Renewal & Reuse Eli Blevis explains his two main principles of sustainable design, “linking invention & disposability” and “promoting renewal & reuse.” (Blevis 507) By linking invention and disposal, he means the design of objects with embedded IT is incomplete without a corresponding account of what will happen to the object and technology that are displaced by other technology.  His second principle, promoting renewal and reuse, states that the design of objects and systems with embedded IT needs to prioritize possibilities for renewal and reuse of existing objects from the perspective of sustainability.  Additionally, Blevis creates a rubric for assessing sustainable design, focusing on disposability, recyclability, and salvageability.

            To further explain how and why we should make design more sustainable, I must delve deeper into the concepts of interaction design and the established design principles. Interaction design is an umbrella that includes components that vary from design to engineering, to Human-Computer Interaction.  One definition I like is “designing interactive products to support the way people communicate and interact in their everyday and working lives.” (Preece 9).

            I find that the core principles of design are most lacking in sustainability.  Like I stated in the first post, there are five core principles of design: visibility, feedback, constraints, consistency, and affordance.  The more visible a function is, the more likely the user will know what to do next.  Along with this goes consistency, which refers to designing interfaces that are similar in mechanism.  Consequently, feedback involves relaying information back to the user to allow them to know what they have accomplished, so that they can proceed. Constraining the user means limiting the kinds of actions they can take at a given moment, oftentimes to prevent them from making a mistake. Lastly, there are affordances, which are “clues” or aspects of an object that let people know how to use it. (Preece 29).

            While I wouldn’t disagree that all of these design principles are vital, I believe that they must shift to react to the need for sustainability.  I propose a sixth design principle for the modern era: renewability.  In addition to ensuring that the user can navigate and know what they are doing when using a product, we should ensure that in doing so the product isn’t wasting resources, its components are salvageable and that it can be reused.

            An example of sustainable, renewable design is the Garmin GPS.  It not only is interactively designed to allow users to easily obtain directions, but it breathes life back into old cars.  Installing a GPS in an older car can save the driver money by creating more efficient routes and offsetting the cost of poorer fuel mileage. (Blevis 510).  Designers must more seriously consider the second life of objects, as increasingly more technology is being integrated into our lives through the smartphone and IoT boom.

Works Cited

Blevis, Eli. "Sustainable Interaction Design: Invention & Disposal, Renewal & Reuse." Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '07 (2007): n. pag. Web. 12 Oct. 2016.

Preece, Jenny, Yvonne Rogers, and Helen Sharp. "Chapter 1: What Is Interaction Design?" Interaction Design: Beyond Human-computer Interaction. New York, NY: J. Wiley & Sons, 2002. N. pag. Print.

The Internet of Things and the Future of Sustainability

          

           The Internet of Things Will Create a More Sustainable World by Tony Scherba presents a highly positive glimpse into future of the Internet of Things (IoT).  But hold on, what is IoT you might ask? Scherba’s response might be “the future,” and I agree, but to clarify, IoT is the interconnected network of electronic products with sensors that are capable of connecting to the Internet or other objects.  Why is this important?  Sure controlling your toaster from your phone is neat, but why does it show promise for a sustainable future?  Scherba explains it is because IoT is not just about hacking things to make cool personal projects, it presents an enormous opportunity to connect systems, solve large-scale problems, and save precious resources such as time, money and energy.

            Let’s look at a few examples of how Scherba thinks IoT can change systems in our lives and talk about how they relate back to sustainable design principles. The first potential IoT use Scherba offers is to “reduce the amount of e-waste across the board.” (Scherba). If companies producing hardware had a way of tracking the lifespan of their electronic components, they receive a notification when the component is headed for the landfill and whether or not it can be salvaged.  This would curb the environmental pollution coming from the electronics industry and would save producers trillions of dollars. This example supports the idea of the circular economy, “a system where waste is re-purposed, or (ideally) eliminated from the manufacturing process entirely.” (Tan). The reusability of products is something I discussed earlier, and in my opinion, IoT is making great strides to support the idea that renewability should be a focus of design. 

            IoT is also sustainable in a way that can directly save us resources such as time and energy.  If sensors were able t alert drivers of vacant parking spots in major cities, fuel and time could be conserved, and pollution would be reduced.  (Scherba). This paints the picture in my head of a utopian society where every aspect of our lives is integrated with IoT, allowing for maximum efficiency.  If we were to connect all of our devices to the IoT network, the resulting cognitive surplus could be used to revolutionize how we operate.  Clay Shirky explains that the Internet changed economics, in that everyone pays for access to the Internet and then everyone can use it. Anyone that subscribes and abides by the rules of the network can be a “full-fledged member.” (Shirky 56)  The future of IoT works under the same assumption, if you employ your devices, you can have access to the entire network. 

            IoT offers an interesting approach to sustainability in the near future. It capitalizes on the idea that the more data we have, the fewer mistakes we will make and resources we will exhaust.  It exemplifies my hypothesized sixth principle of design – renewability – and challenges the belief that we have to create waste and repair or buy new products by proposing an emphasis on reusability.

Works Cited

Scherba, Tony. "The Internet Of Things Will Create A More Sustainable World". Yeti.co. N.p.,                       2016. Web. 14 Oct. 2016.

          Shirky, Clay. Cognitive Surplus: Creativity and Generosity in a Connected Age. New York:                           Penguin, 2010. 42-64. Print.

          Tan, Joy. "How the Internet of Things Will Boost Sustainability." Web log post. LinkedIn.com.                       LinkedIn, 6 Aug. 2015. Web. 13 Oct. 2106. <https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-  internet-               things-boost-sustainability-joy-tan>.

Is Repair the Future of Sustainability?

            How do developing nations contribute to the push for sustainable design? Potentially the answer lies in the culture surrounding repair. Jackson, Ahmed and Rifat’s research in Learning, Innovation, and Sustainability among Mobile Phone Repairers in Dhaka, Bangladesh vividly illustrates a society highly dependent on electronics repair.  The authors’ excellent work and dedication to observing and interviewing repairers in Bangladesh allow us to see how sustainable design makes an impact in the developing world.  Their research found that repairers in Dhaka are divided into two groups, brand repairers and independent repairers, the latter of which have their own shops, or work in collaboration with other individuals.  What differentiates these groups aside from education is that “brand repairers” (Jackson 3) are more likely to discard and replace components, whereas independent fixers are more apt to use exploratory methods and creative solutions.  The independent repairers and the Bhangari, who circulate through repair shops acquiring unwanted parts and redistributing them, are the ones that are contributing to the sustainable aspect of repair culture.  Repair is dynamic in that fixers constantly have to stay updated on technology, similar to the rapidly changing high-tech world of IoT.

            If you asked me how fixing things could be sustainable, I would have told you that the products should have been designed to be durable in the first place.  What Jackson and co.’s research demonstrates is how fragile design can create a “no waste” culture.  Independent repairers are adamant on coming up with creative solutions to fix mobile phones and other electronics rather than just replacing and discarding parts.  Additionally, the Bhangari ensure that no electrical components go to waste.  What can be reused gets salvaged and what cannot is sold to China for scrap.   Once again we see a thriving example of a sustainable circular economy, where producers repurpose as many items as possible and minimize waste.

            To encourage this culture of reusability, I believe designers should make user fixing products more user-friendly.  They could do this by employing some of the traditional principles of design.  Maybe include more affordances in the design of the electrical components so that fixers can more quickly locate where problems are, or give some feedback to indicate the mender’s progress.  Just like how users face gulfs of evaluation and execution when learning how to use an object and how it responds, repairers face the same obstacles when fixing items. (Norman 38).  If designers were able to bridge the gulfs on the repair side by including mechanisms that indicate whether electrical components of the object, such as a cell phone, are malfunctioning, they could bolster the thriving culture of reusability in places like Bangladesh. 

            Despite the current focus on sustainable design in the high-tech sector and IoT, repair seems to be a promising investment.  Making and repairing are certainly different ventures, but each strives to reduce wasted resources and create a greener future.

Works Cited

Jackson, Steven J., Syed Ishtiaque Ahmed, and Rashidujjaman Rifat. "Learning, Innovation, and Sustainability among Mobile Phone Repairers in Dhaka, Bangladesh." Association for Computing Machinery (2014): n. pag. Web. 14 Oct. 2016.

Norman, Donald A. "Chapter 2: The Psychology of Everyday Actions." The Design of Everyday Things. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2013. N. pag. Print.