Final Project
Objective
Phishing scams, biased AI, addictive games, and fake news are just a few of the unexpected harms that have arisen from popular end-user technologies. Many of today’s threats are already well documented, but others undoubtedly remain undocumented. Your job is to both predict and improve the future—what problematic designs are currently out in the world and going unnoticed?
Description
On your own, or in a group of no more than 4 people, you will first identify an existing product that you claim is unethical. You will defend this claim according to one or more of the philosophies we have discussed throughout the quarter and conduct a design critique according to these principles. You will then solicit user input as you redesign the experience to be one you would be proud to sell. The problem you examine should be emerging, that is, neither mainstream nor fantasy. The product should be out in the world, usable, and have customers, but the particular ways in which you show it to be problematic should not yet be well known or understood.
Requirements
- The product you critique should violate the principles of one or more philosophies we have discussed and undermine welfare, freedom, virtue, and/or relationships
- Your redesign should be grounded in user research with real users
- Your redesign process should leverage at least one of the techniques we have tried in studio, like the Would-You-Rather game, mindful usage walk-through, or a sketch diary
- Your redesign should produce a single, marketable product that could plausibly serve as a replacement for the product you critique
Deliverables
- Choose your group members – 2/3/23
You may work on your final project individually but are strongly encouraged to form a team. Either way, list your group members here. If you would like help finding a group, feel free to reach out to the teaching team! - Choose your technology – 2/10/23
Update your team’s entry on the final project presentation sign up spreadsheet. to include the name of the technology you will be redesigning. - Project proposal and testing plans – 2/17/23
Select a product and form a plan for conducting your design process. This plan should include a description of the ways you will solicit user input to guide your redesign. Submit to Canvas as a Word doc or PDF: 1) a short (1-2 paragraph) description of your planned project (accompanying screenshots or other visuals are welcome), 2) a description of your user research plans including a list of the methods you plan to use and why, and 3) your materials to solicit user input (these might include: a list of interview questions, a link to a survey, a description of procedures for an elicitation study, etc). - Draft – 3/3/23
Submit a first draft of your report that includes draft text of your design critique and user testing. Include sketches or other representations of your design concept. Submit a work-in-progress copy of your slide deck for your presentation. - Presentation (12 pts) – 3/7/23 or 3/9/23 (presentation date assigned randomly)
Prepare and deliver a strictly timed 15-minute in-class presentation (including 2 minutes for Q&A) to the class showcasing: the original product, your design critique and justification that it is evil, your redesign concept, and the user input that informed it. Be sure to relate both versions of the product to specific ethical principles and the product’s effect on welfare, freedom, and virtue. Plan to attend class and watch your classmates’ presentations on BOTH days. On the day you are not presenting, you will be asked to give peer feedback to other groups. Proving this care and support for your classmates is worth 5% of your total presentation grade. Also submit a copy of your slides on Canvas before the beginning of class on the day you are presenting. - Final report (20 pts) – 3/10/23, 11:59 pm
Submit a final report that includes each of the components below. Your report can take the form of a web page, blog post, or Word doc. You are encouraged to make your report an online artifact that you and your teammates can include in your design portfolios. There is no mandatory word count, but it is suggested that your report be between 2500-3500 words. Your report should include:- A justification of the original product as evil. Describe your product fully (include visuals). Use principled frameworks from this class (and from your own outside reading if appropriate) to defend your claim that your product is evil. How does it impact welfare, freedom, virtue, and relationships? What ethical frameworks does it violate?
- A description of your redesign process. This should include your research methods and resulting data. Include a summary of findings, photos of materials you used, descriptions of personas you created, or whatever details best capture your design process.
- A specification of your final design. This should include sufficient description and images for someone to fully build your product. Include details for all components of the experience, with particular attention to the features that make your product good rather than evil. How will this support people's welfare, freedom, virtue, or relationships more effectively than the original?
- [Optional] Description of group work You are welcome to submit an optional individual write up describing the way your team divided the work of completing the final project, your contributions to the team, and the contributions of your teammates. This statement should be no more than 300 words. At the instructor’s discretion, these statements will be used to adjust individual team member grades by as little as 0% or as much as 10% from the grade that a team member would have received. If no team members submit a statement, all team members will receive the same grade.
Assessment
- Proposal and draft: These components are not graded and serve as checkpoints to help you stay on track. Failing to deliver either component on time will result in 5% deduction from your overall final project grade (10% if both components are missing). Use these checkpoints for accountability and support, and do not worry about having a highly polished deliverable at this stage!
Presentation Rubric
| Category | Item | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Topic Selection | Highlights a compelling concern; does someone viewing the presentation feel chilled with worry? | 20% |
| Highlights a novel or emerging concern; showcases a problem the viewer had not thought much about. | ||
| Critiques a specific, existing, digital technology. | ||
| Critique | Uses visuals, diagrams, storyboards, text, etc., to clearly illustrate the technology as a whole, with particular attention to features that are problematic. Someone who is unfamiliar with the technology can understand how it works. | 30% |
| Convincingly illustrates what makes the product evil. Leaves the audience convinced the product should not exist or must be changed. | ||
| Uses the ethical frameworks we have discussed to provide a strong foundation for critiquing the technology as problematic | ||
| Redesign | Clearly illustrates what the new product will be like. How is it different? What is the experience like? | 30% |
| Presents data from users and links these findings to redesign choices. | ||
| Clearly illustrates how user data was collected and how the design process was conducted. | ||
| Uses the ethical frameworks we have discussed to provide a strong foundation for claiming the redesigned version has moral worth. Someone viewing the presentation should be convinced this is the right thing to do and passionately want your new version to be implemented! | ||
| Presence | Engaging presentation that holds the audience's attention. | 15% |
| Clear and easy-to-follow. | ||
| High-quality images, polished text, catchy title, aesthetically pleasing composition and colors, etc. | ||
| Participation from all teammates | ||
| Peer Feedback (graded individually) | Attends class on BOTH presentation days and provides feedback to groups presenting on the opposite day | 5% |
Report Rubric
| Category | Item | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Critique | Description of the current product. What is the user’s experience today? If applicable, how do the experiences of the broader user base bubble up into societal-level effects? | 30% |
| Critique of evil features. How do specific design choices impact the freedom, welfare, virtue, and relationships of users or indirect stakeholders? | ||
| Why is this problematic? Ground your critique in specific ethical perspectives we have talked about this quarter. A reader should be convinced that this product needs to be redesigned. | ||
| Process | Describe your user testing and design process in sufficient detail that someone could replicate your steps. Who did you collect data from? How did you collect it? How did you analyze it? | 30% |
| Include artifacts from your process. These might be design sketches, persona definitions, photos of prototypes, aggregated survey results, etc. | ||
| Explain how user data informed redesign choices. | ||
| Redesign | Include images, storyboards, description to explain how your redesigned product works. Could someone use your specification to implement the new version of the product? | 30% |
| Explain the anticipated outcome of the redesign. How will the product now impact welfare, freedom, virtue, and relationships? How will the social implications differ from those of the original product? | ||
| Justify your choices from the perspective of the ethical frameworks we have discussed. Why would a philosopher prefer your version over the original? | ||
| Redesign | Clear writing, minimal or no typos, well-articulated explanations | 10% |
| Visuals with captions that make the report easy to follow |