put down your thoughts on paper n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Put down your thoughts on paper PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Put down your thoughts on paper

Put down your thoughts on paper

116 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Put down your thoughts on paper

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Put down your thoughts on paper • What is the common theme across the two papers? • Describe their initial goals (Digital Green and one case from the Brewer paper) • Did the goals change in the design process? • Who are the stakeholders (Digital Green and one case from the Brewer paper • What are the values of the designers? • How did the technologies come to be used?

  2. ICTs for Developing countries (ICT4D) Nithya Sambasivan

  3. Global poverty • Condition of not being able to afford basic human needs • such as healthcare, clean water or sanitation • Often measured economically • Can also be measured through welfare and basic needs • Inequality and vulnerability

  4. Pyramid of the capitalist system

  5. What is a “developing” country?

  6. What is a “developing” country? • “Developing” country: United Nations Human Development Index (HDI) score <.8 • 99 countries • ƒThe HDI is comprised of • ŠLife expectancy at birth • ŠAdult literacy (age 15 and above) • ŠCombined gross enrollment ration in education • ŠGross domestic product (GDP) per capita • Gini coefficient • Measure of inequality of income or wealth

  7. HDI distribution The greener the better

  8. GINI co-efficient The greener the better

  9. GINI co-efficient The greener the better What is this telling us?

  10. GINI co-efficient The greener the better What is this telling us? Poverty is a global phenomenon

  11. ICT4D—a historical view • 1998 World Development Report • Formalized in 2000 United Nations Millennium Summit "ensure that the benefits of new technologies, especially information and communication technologies are available to all". 

  12. ICT4D • ICTs: telephone, television, computer, or community radio • In the device or “cloud” [Toyama and Dias] • Typically for “development”—poverty reduction, healthcare, climate change • Can also include free expression or entertainment

  13. How is it different?

  14. How is it different? • Designing for • A different ethos (social and cultral values) • Low literacies • Disruptive connections • Low incomes • Areas lacking basic welfare and infrastructure at times • Traditional western techniques of understanding, information visualization, or evaluation do not work

  15. Mobile repair store in Mumbai, India India: fastest growing mobile market (517 million as of Dec 2009) Image courtesy: Nimmi Rangaswamy

  16. A household in a slum community in Bangalore Dynamic sites of consumption

  17. Masai men in Kenya using mobiles The number of mobile phone users in Africa exceeded 370 million in 2008 Image:

  18. What are we doing here? • We: • designers, technologists, policy makers • Working towards empowerment & reduction of inequality • Understand current and potential technologies • in solving socio-economic problems

  19. “To create educational opportunities for the world's poorest children by providing each child with a rugged, low-cost, low-power, connected laptop with content and software designed for collaborative, joyful, self-empowered learning. “ • (OLPC website) • “The world’s poorest two billion people need desperately need healthcare, not laptops” • (Bill Gates) From Kentaro Toyama’s slides

  20. Why technology for development?

  21. Why technology for development? • It is a means and not the end • Is technology always the solution? • Why computing technology when other sources are free or low-cost • social networks, cyber cafes, television, radio, etc • Information is not always the key • social, political, and cultural structures prevent access and/or practice • Well-designed technologies must not exacerbate existing divides Some text from Kentaro Toyama

  22. Framing the problem Case: Digital Green • National: Increasing debt and decreasing returns have forced some farmers to sell cheap and commit suicide in some cases [NSSO 2005] • Inadequate knowledge about farming • Local: Green Foundation working with 20 villages

  23. Initial goals • To design an information system • catered to good practices in farming • Evaluate the use of videos featuring NGO staff, experts, and farmers • Increase in productivity through baseline

  24. Initial assumptions • Videos may be interesting and viable • Supporting infrastructure could be sponsored and introduced • Videos increase in knowledge and relevant information • Increased knowledge better farming practices • Better farming practices higher profits and less deaths

  25. Stakeholders

  26. Stakeholders • Microsoft Research • Green Foundation • Later on, Digital Green Foundation • Farmer users • Field officers

  27. The design process • Iterative • Understanding: Ethnographic investigation (200 days) • Initial roll-outs • Farmers liked videos of similar people • Demand for demos, testimonials, entertainment • Seasonal preference • Mediation was key • Demand for repeated sessions

  28. The design process • Participatory videos • Overview, itemization, step-by-step instructions, benefits, Q&A • Indian idol • Verifiability • Video editors • Mediated instruction • Regimented sequencing

  29. What happened later? • Spun off to become the Digital Green NGO • Built capacity for Green Foundation • Expanded to others parts

  30. The big issues in Design for Development

  31. Cultural differences • Cultural and language barriers between designers and users • Gender, race, skin colour, or age affect access • Socio-cultural norms may be different • Sitting on the floor • Wearing traditional clothes to reduce power levels

  32. Literacies • What is literacy? • ability to identify, understand, interpret, create, communicate, compute and use printed and written materials associated with varying contexts [UNESCO]. • There are many forms of literacies • Textual, numeric, digital, symbolic • Varying degrees • 95% of websites are in English

  33. Interface design Case: Text-free UIs [Medhi] • User interfaces for non-literate users • Pen or touch interface • Liberal use of imagery • No text • Semi-abstracted cartoons • Voice annotation • Aggressive use of mouse-over functionality • Consistent help icon

  34. Nouns vs. verbs “Kitchen sink” or “washing dishes”? “Pot” or “cooking”? Courtesy: Indrani Medhi

  35. Cultural differences An urban family user? • Will a recycle bin make sense where it is unheard of? • Colours mean differently in different countries [Badre] Courtesy: Indrani Medhi

  36. Design Original design Revised design Courtesy: Indrani Medhi

  37. Ethics • Whose notion of development? • Should “development” always be instrumental?

  38. Ethics • Whose notion of development? • Should “development” always be instrumental? • Appropriation of telecenter as photo-shopping, astrology service • Is watching Youtube or online social networking not useful? • Brazil and India are the largest consumers of Orkut • Television led to increased resistance of domestic abuse in India and family planning in Brazil • Listen to instrumental, healthcare programs on radio after a long day’s work, anyone?

  39. Sustainability • Enhancing long-term capability after project ends • Case: SARI (Sustainable Access in Rural India) • Collaboration with MIT, IIT, GaTech, Harvard, and n-Logue • Privately-owned in 32 cases • Lack of adequate technical support, new and relevant content, and end of institutional partnerships

  40. Marketing for the user • How is a product created for low-income consumers marketed? • • • • What did you notice?

  41. Marketing for the user • Lifestyle-based marketing • Family values • Truck driver • Entertaining and creative • Catering to social class and aspiration • Does not explicitly market as a “poor man’s phone” • Conveys through choice of characters

  42. Marketing for the “giver” Case: Kiva

  43. Marketing for the “giver” • Bay area users (green leaf, white bg) • Design to extract money (PayPal, amount raised) • Establishing “legitimacy” • Scams versus appropriate giving • Establishes “cause” • Entrepreneurship appears “useful” and “a way out of poverty” • Poor communities • The small amount of money can make a big “difference”

  44. Capacity building • Designers leave • Training local people in usage and repair • Expensive to provide immediate assistance • Public demonstrations, media, word-of-mouth

  45. Capacity building Case: One Laptop Per Child • Beautiful design • Tough, open source software, low energy use, an • Techno-centric • Not wrong, but irrelevant content • Rich, American kids != poor, Ecuadoriaskids • MIT Ecuador, not MIT Ecuador • Requires new skills and literacies • No capacity building • 10,000 laptops per country

  46. Value systems • Personal, private ownership and usage • Communal, shared, and negotiated usage • Women as empowered or independent • Perhaps not everywhere • Independent use • Intermediated use also

  47. Value systems Case: Multipoint • 10 student per computer in certain rural schools in India Source: Udai Singh Pawar

  48. Solution: Multi-mouse Source: Udai Singh Pawar

  49. Despite the challenges • The promise is great • Technology penetration ++ • Evidence of success exists • Fishermen in Kerala • Digital Green • Kelsa+ • Humbling • Towards a better world!

  50. Questions? </Le fin>