54

Statement summarizing my research, critical analysis, and defining the purpose and scope of the app:

This is my graphical rendition of a hypothetical mobile version of a JavaScript and PHP game I once created for Facebook on Chrome that was once popular with Reversi players on Facebook. The original game is an improvement on an earlier game that was very simple but abandoned. This graphical rendition created in Illustrator for this assignment uses the concepts we learned from this class such as hierarchy of important items, user recognition, symmetry, alignment (although I need to work on creating aligning grids I guess, because some of the lines aren't straight, like we learned how to make them, but I ran out of time, so I'll have to save that for later.) My research included what online Reversi tournament players wanted the app to look like and included interviews with players, but that was a long time ago, so this is just a rendition based on that game with Illustrator for a hypothetical future mobile version.

Why is the UCD approach essential when designing products? Products are for users so we want them to be as perfect for them as we can make them, and UCD design principles help us do that. What is the UCD design process flow?

Think of an idea, draw a picture on paper, set up the asset graphics in Photoshop, create the artboards in Illustrator, then create the vector icons, then copy the artboards and create the design you drew on paper with your icons and graphic assets and concepts you came up with, then prototype the design in XD or similar prototyping software, and create the program with your favorite programming language or languages or paradigms of your choice! Describe briefly your target users, and highlight the benefits of the app for them. My original app was created for Reversi users on Facebook, and this is a mobile rendition for imaginary mobile Reversi tournament users from the future.

Do individuals of higher income and education levels have a responsibility to educate those of lower education and income levels on the internet, its functions, and how to use it, or does the responsibility fall on those of lower income and education levels to do so themselves?

In this information age, I definitely personally believe people should spread as much knowledge as they can to whoever they can, however they can. Keeping information never helps anyone, everyone should have all the tips. The flip side to that is you can't tell everyone all the tips, everyone is on a different knowledge level and everyone has a different knowledge capacity for different subjects. I try to help people with computers however I can and I always have, just because when I was a kid I saw it was a weak point in our society's knowledge, especially with the amount there is to know about tech growing so fast.

As technology advances, the demand for technical literacy increases. Do you think that limited accessibility to technology is an implicit result of socio-economic status? Does the responsibility to bridge this gap fall on tech giants (who are pushing out new technology, and expecting those who can pay for it to keep up), or at a local level (community, county, state, federal, etc.)? Why?

Limited accessibility to technology is not inherently an implicit result of socio-economic status but is probably indirectly tied to it, so, unfortunately, yes, I think, perhaps indirectly. The flip side is that not everyone wants or embraces technology in all it's forms, or necessarily feels they need to be caught up with the latest technology. I know lots of people that feel that way, and there is good reason for it, especially with all the controversy with privacy, but also for lots of other reasons, and people in lower socio-economic status may not necessarily embrace technology because they lead simple and pure lives and don't necessarily want to get involved with what they may see as just the latest tech fads. As a programmer, I completely understand that, because I think it's the same reason I use as few dependencies in programs as I need, because dependencies cause problems down the line, because it's something external you don't have any control over. People who lead simple lives are keeping their personal dependencies to a minimum and I think they don't necessarily see there being any problem with not keeping up, the tech giants do, because those people don't necessarily buy into everything or buy their stuff. Some of them at least partly see our 'technology' the same way we see the concept of a 'smart toaster' - pretty much pointless. So, it's the tech giants responsibility, since they're the ones who made up the problem, and they care way more than the people who don't care and don't have all the latest technology. I know farm and field workers, and the ones I know really, really do not care about tech or the internet or any of it, and same with the Amish, I hear. I'm not saying it wouldn't benefit them, I'm just saying, lots of people really don't care for it, and there are lots of classes of people in between who think some of technology is good and a lot is superfluous, smart toasters for example.

In the Pew article, 25% of people surveyed found that the internet negatively impacts society through isolation and screen time. With the ever growing technology industry, consumers find themselves increasing screen time and decreasing human-to-human interaction. Many parents find this as an advantage to occupy their younger children. Do you think that enabling young children to depend on technology is a fault in society’s encouragement for technology use, or are there potential benefits that should also be considered? Explain.

No, I do not think tech should be used to occupy young kids time or minds for lots of reasons. I personally have seen parents abuse this option to no good end, and I think it's dangerous to young minds and could damage them permanently. Mathematics however could fit this bill, just give the kids math problems so they all become math geniuses, or something intellectual or useful instead of just trying to occupy them. I don't necessarily think the statistics about the internet negatively affecting our society are necessarily paired with their correct causality - there are so many facets of tech - people holding their heads down staring at their phone all of a sudden like zombies - wrist problems - thumb problems from flicking everything up all the time - my point is that it might not be 'the internet' it might be the devices, or whatever, something else, or lots of other stuff. The internet's a bunch of wires, so what exactly about the internet is so bad? I think it's something else about tech or a bunch of other stuff about tech that are causing problems. I think the decrease in interaction is a problem but also I am guessing there are going to be implications to people holding their phones like they do all the time and stuff like that - embracing tech that is too new to be tried and true that could wind up doing harm, another example: 5G controversy, etc. There is big money in tech and so big reasons to push products and paradigms that might not necessarily be good for human existence.

Hi,

I agree with what you wrote, that screen time to occupy children is not a good parenting technique, I also agree with what you said about those kids being more comfortable later with using electronics. That is a good point and the flip side to it not being good parenting practice. Perhaps there is some middle ground that would be optimal.

Hi,

Good point you make about hackers being able to dupe even the most veteran users, and that is really important to know because when a good tool can turn against you so extremely there needs to be a big warning about it. I personally have seen very advanced hackers at work trying to obtain personal information, and it's really scary when you see it in person.