Elevating strengths and capacities: the different shades of assets-based design in HCI
Elevating strengths and capacities: the different shades of assets-based design in HCI
复制标题
提升优势和能力：HCI 中基于资产的设计的不同层次
DOI：
10.1145/3549068
复制
发表时间：
2022
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Hernandez, J. Maya
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Wong-Villacres, Marisol;Erete, Sheena;Gautam, Aakash;Ismail, Azra;Kumar, Neha;Pei, Lucy;Roldan, Wendy;Ahumada-Newhart, Veronica;Badillo-Urquiola, Karla;Hernandez, J. Maya
对话站在基于资产的设计目标的立场上，人机交互及相关领域内的残疾正义研究绝大多数都集中在独立/依赖叙述上，导致设计出不支持代理的解决方案。有时，这些解决方案是彻底的压迫性的。基于资产的设计可以实现向相互依存关系的转变，以个人的整体性为中心，而不是修复人格的差距。有两个问题突出，为人机交互中的残疾正义提出了重要的、开放性的问题：1）当霸权偏见和权力差异存在时，资产面临挑战；2）使用残疾正义研究中流行的现有方法和理论以及基于资产的设计。设计师的偏见是定义他们在基于资产的设计工作中的角色和实践的一个关键方面。偏见被定义为在设计过程中优先考虑反映部分观点的决策的倾向[3]。偏见经常被误解和忽视，但采取策略尽可能防止偏见至关重要。除了努力防止偏见之外，认识到其潜在来源并承认不可能产生无偏见的知识也同样重要。正如女权主义科学研究学者所指出的那样，所有知识都是有位置的，但是，作为设计师，在残疾正义背景下设计和识别资产时，评估我们的偏见、观点和动机变得至关重要。残疾人正义工作需要更多的方法论途径来确定资产，从而避免霸权偏见。可能有助于阐明这些途径的问题是：谁是真正的残疾专家（例如残疾人、护理人员、临床医生）？他们如何真正支持关于资产的讨论？基于资产的设计和残疾正义的另一个突出主题是我们如何使用残疾司法工作中普遍存在的不同方法和理论方法来支持基于资产的目标。一个关键问题是，这些方法提出的概念与基于资产的设计可能需要什么之间的细微差别仍然不清楚。例如，虽然协同设计旨在将最终用户聚集在一起提出一个系统并塑造设计信息
DIALOGUES STANDPOINT with the goals of assets-based design, a significant majority of research on disability justice within HCI and related fields has focused on independence/dependence narratives, leading to designed solutions that do not support agency. At times these solutions have been outright oppressive. Assets-based design could enable a shift toward interdependent relationships, centering the wholeness of an individual rather than fixing gaps in personhood. Two issues stand out as raising important, open questions for disability justice in HCI: 1) challenges in assets when hegemonic biases and power differentials exist, and 2) the use of existing methodologies and theories prevalent in disability justice studies together with assets-based design. Designers’ biases are a key aspect defining their roles and practices in assets-based design endeavors. Bias is defined as a tendency in design to prioritize decisions in the design process that reflect partial views [3]. Bias is often misunderstood and ignored, but it is crucial to adopt strategies to prevent it, to the extent possible. In addition to trying to prevent bias, it is equally important to recognize its potential sources and acknowledge the impossibility of generating bias-free knowledge. All knowledge is situated, as feminist science studies scholars have pointed out, but, as designers, it becomes critical to evaluate our biases, perspectives, and motivations when designing and identifying assets in the context of disability justice. Work on disability justice needs more methodological pathways for determining assets in ways that circumvent hegemonic bias. Questions that might help illuminate these pathways are Who are the real disability experts (eg, people with disabilities, caregivers, clinicians)? and How can they truly support a discussion on assets?Another salient theme for assets-based design and disability justice is how we go about using different methodologies and theoretical approaches that are prevalent in disability justice work in support of assetsbased goals. A key problem is that the nuanced differences between the concepts these approaches propose and what assets-based design might entail remain unclear. For instance, while codesign aims to bring together end users to propose a system and shape the design informing