This is a fascinating topic to me, in part because it runs into what feels to me like a sort of knee-jerk resistance.
In the first place, let me say that I think it would be much better if designers (and everybody else) got on top of the challenge of designing products that are not energy hogs, to obviate the need to teach people how to use their stuff so it doesn't waste energy doing nothing or to use it more sparingly, or whatever. But in general terms designing products and information resources in such a way that they encourage consumers to reduce their footprint does seem like a laudable enterprise. What's more, it seems to me to be in line with the general outlook of the discipline to create things that modify behavior. Whether we design social shopping experiences, or phones that are actually rich internet devices, or online FAQs or complaint systems, or online communities, we are in the business of changing behavior, even though we don't normally use the words. Except that we do it, pretty much, without regard to footprint. On the whole, the upshot of our work tends to be to get people to start doing things they didn't use to do or to do the same things in a different way, or the same things using a different provider. So then what makes us jerk those knees? Is it just the words, "changing behavior"? Oh, my god, sounds like communism! But that's social engineering, my students said with an offended sneer seven years ago (as if Apple doesn't dirty its hands with that kind of thing). The creator of the website Dave pointed us to says, "placing others' welfare above ones own desires [is] widely perceived to signify a reduction in lifestyle quality or choice," which may well be the common perception--I don't really know. But it is in conflict with the preponderance of psychological research on what makes people happy, which suggests that above a certain level of material well-being, happiness doesn't go up very much with further increases in material wealth, whereas happiness does increase progressively as people have more positive experiences involving friends, family, and community. This applies the notion that we adopt behavior changes for sustainability for "ourselves" (as Alex pointed out) not only to the hoped-for outcome, but to the process of engaging in the behaviors itself. If you do things for and with a community of people you care for (and I'm going to assume for the moment that green behaviors qualify), you are likely to experience an enhancement of lifestyle quality. That is, you can do it for yourself. All in all, it seems to me, if we get an opportunity to design a phone with more "manageable" energy consumption, we'd be fools to turn up our noses at it. Same thing if we get the chance to design the information resources that have the purpose of modifying individual behavior to increase the longevity of the species (and many other species besides). We'd be fools not to try to translate to online experiences those findings in social psychology about what is effective in motivating individuals to change their behavior offline. In my understanding of it, that is very much the province of interaction design. Kind regards, Marijke -----Original Message----- Alex said: A couple of days ago somebody wrote something very wise: http://www.openthefuture.com/2008/04/the_earth_will_be_just_fine_th.html "The grand myth of environmentalism is that it's all about saving the Earth. It's not. The Earth will be just fine. Environmentalism is all about saving ourselves." ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
