Event 1: World Interaction Design Day
Introduction
The World Interaction Design Day started off with an introduction to the event, company, sponsors and speakers. It was particularly interesting to note that the annual event has a different topic current to the year. This year, the topic was focused on ethics, equity and responsibility.
Jonathan Yap - equity and pay
The first speaker, Jonathan Yap, is the creator of Design Pay Asia, a platform that collects data on the salaries of design jobs (he left the definition on this relatively broad, ranging from UX designers to architects). The most shocking thing I took away from his sharing of the statistics released earlier this year was that the gender pay gap is a whopping 42% (Figure 1). I did expect there to be a gap but I didn't expect a gulf. He shared stories during the panel discussion that some female designers who found out that they were indeed getting paid less than their male counterparts took this up with their managers and were able to fight for the same pay. This was definitely a very sad way to start off the session, but I digress. In using his data to come up with problem statements, Jonathan used "how might we" questions (Figure 2). This method was touched on during our seminar on crafting good problem statements as it challenges us to view a problem through several lenses. In Jonathan's case, he just listed different areas of issues with design pay in Asia though there isn't any problem with that, it was just interesting to see something I brushed off lightly in the lecture used in the real-world context.
 |
| Figure 1 |
 |
| Figure 2 |
Immanuel Goh - accessibility and inclusivity
The second speaker, Immanuel Goh, shared more points relevant to our module as he focused on inclusivity. He very easily showed me that I had been thinking narrowly on the topic of accessibility and inclusivity as he stated that it is not just people with disabilities but people with limitations (Figure 3). This means that it would include anyone and everyone. Let me try to explain with an example I've been using a lot in my reflections: commuting on a train. I used to think that accessibility in a train context was having more space for handicapped individuals to board the train and remain close to the door without obstructing others. Immanuel's explanation showed me that it was more than this, accessibility and inclusivity also include commuters who only have one hand free as they are holding on to the railing - how might they easily and independently interact with the environment. These commuters aren't disabled but they are indeed people who are limited. This was so striking to me that I am still shocked (as I am writing this) at my oversight. Dennis's sharing on designing different phone grips is also an act of inclusive design. An inclusive design addresses the assumption of someone being able to use both hands to use a phone. I think it is then important that schools consciously teach this so as to avoid developing an assumption that accessibility and inclusivity == designing for the disabled. The auto-fill form function on the iPhone is a wonderful accessible feature that is designed for all - for people who do not have enough time to fill up a form.
 |
| Figure 3 |
Immanuel also shared something important about designing for (digital) independence. This meant being able to use a design without asking anyone questions. In the panel discussion, he brought up an important point that looking into inclusive and accessible design is an investment in our future where some of us may not have caregivers in our old age, how would we independently operate technologies (not just IoT but technology also includes shirts etc.). I also agreed when he told us to think about how privileged we are to be able to walk into the toilet. This was something I took for granted as a designer and saw no problems with the design. A heightened awareness of accessibility would make me think about how accessible the toilet is to not just handicapped individuals but also pregnant women. Are they able to use the toilet independently without having to call for assistance? How might we design a toilet that would optimise their interaction? His sharing really offered a lot of food for thought on how I would approach inclusive design.
Immanuel also asked a question "How many ways can human beings engage in that activity". This reminded me of the lecture on context. We would not be able to design for every and all possible scenarios but being able to give them the ability to access features that would aid their independent interaction with the design to reach their desired goal is essentially the aim of accessibility design. He sums this up quite nicely (Figures 4 and 5).
 |
| Figure 4 |
 |
| Figure 5 |
Ng Xin Yi - sustainability through freeganism
The third speaker, Ng Xin Yi, introduced a fairly new term of freeganism. She defines it as an ideology of limited participation in the conventional economy and minimal consumption of resources, particularly through recovering wasted goods like food (Figure 6). As the face of the freeganism movement in Singapore, she shared ways on how she has pursued this zero-waste lifestyle in Singapore. She mentioned an interesting topic on designing systems that make this lifestyle sustainable. She praises how having a dishwasher was a lifesaver since she gets a lot of food from food rescues and has to cook a lot before it goes bad. Extending this to our module, it made me think of the gulf of execution and evaluation. Beyond just using this theory for design work, it talks about developing a system that works because you know what to do (execution) and it will tell you if you're doing it or not (evaluation). A simple cycle that we can easily overlook unless we take the time to appreciate and apply the formula in our everyday lives.
 |
| Figure 6 |
Comments
Post a Comment