Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
SDL.530 Personal Assignment 2 - Coggle Diagram
SDL.530 Personal Assignment 2
Personal Assignment 2
stand.earth x ikonik
purposes
for whom
what context
why good for s. in terms of its moral nature
analysis – why designers succeeded / failed
design thinking concepts
notes
normative decision making
decision analysis
decision basis to “design basis”
four components
Frame
what are we actually trying to do
1 more item...
not same as POV
assoc. with the decision, not designer
state assumptions, boundaries, scope, definitions
2 more items...
Preferences
”what do we want”
whose prefs
”others’ prefs” may be uncertain
as well as one’s own!make prefs clear enough
projecting designer’s preferences
3 more items...
Alternatives
”what we can do”
creative
epistemic uncertainty
1 more item...
even alternatives / prototypes to be discarded = educational
State of knowledge
at time of design situation
make explicit
essential in early prototyping
1 more item...
focus on unknown but relevant
problem of “unknown unknowns”
1 more item...
frames
"what problems/opportunities. developer wanted to address? aims/business motivations?
"
preferences
"developer roles and their priorities – values?"
ui design
software architect
marketer
alternatives
state of knowledge
"info designers did not have then, any outdated assumptions? societal/tech preconditions that need to be met for app to work?
"
lecture concepts
L3 factors contrib. to accidental evil
"have these led to app being problematic or not?"
[notes]
general laws
"what is the prejudice of this application or favored perspective?
"
tech tends to be come mythic, unquestionable
what’s the tradeoff? always something lost (deskilling? convenience?)
manufactured needs?
natural evil
emergence
"systems theory - changes that “juist happen”. cannot be predicted by risk analysis
"
unexpected and unintended (outside venn diagram)
mitigated by app being very specific
accidental evil (unintentional but avoidable?)
emergence (can also be natural)
myopia / short sightedness
"individuals focus on parts of a whole
"
t.d. why stocks
why invest in the first place (assumed we all agree in investing to some degree)
cultural
transitions
"cultural/collective
"
artifact use has gradual change for purposes not originally intended (like)
qualitative
function creep
cultural narratives
solutionism - applicable to stand.earth?
unwarranted confidence in human capacity to overcome obstacles
**lack of problem ID
"problem of investing much broader than proxy voting
"
one alternative: viable low-tech or no-tech approach?
long-term effects?
does the tech solve a computationally tractable problem?
-
other problematic issues
virtue signalling / moral posing?
"not so visible, more like a moral salve"
…?
L4 ethics theory
do the different schools explain the analysis results
consequentialist lens: what ends to pursue
moving the big movers through democracy leads them to make better sustainable decisions
many people can make a difference
however not really questioning the “need” for the company or their product or growth in general
optimal compared to regular investing with involvement/boycott fatigue, but compared to not investing?
Deontological lens - perhaps strongest: how to act?
categorical imperative: check! works if everyone does it (explore?)
conditional based on current capitalist system and role of US stock investor
ground rules for email access
ground rules for voting transparency (though user may ignore)
Virtue Ethics lens - how to be? – not so much?
temperance instead of self-indulgence
ambition but not greed/sloth
prudence - yes and no
not super thorough systemically solution-wise
rational and cautious
still somewhat solutionistic
others-orientation, somewhat
yes in limited terms of voting