User Autonomy: Who Should Control What and When?

Batya Friedman*, Helen Nissenbaum**

*Mathematics and Computer Science
Colby College
Waterville, ME 04901, USA
+1 207 872 3572
b_friedm@colby.edu

**University Center for Human Values
Marx Hall
Princeton University
Princeton, NJ 08544, USA
+1 609 258 2879
helen@phoenix.princeton.edu

KEYWORDS

Autonomy, computer system design, design methods, ethics, information systems, social computing, social impact.

INTRODUCTION

In this workshop we are concerned with understanding the relationship between user autonomy, the user interface, and computer system design. By autonomy we mean the capability to act on the basis of one's own decisions; to be guided by one's own reasons, desires, and goals. When actions are unduly constrained or restricted then autonomy may be diminished or violated. Evaluating the interface and system design in relation to user autonomy involves uncovering the extent to which systems either enhance or diminish autonomy.

A case in point: This past year, a colleague of ours (whom we will call Jim) enthusiastically welcomed video-conferencing into his office. With the addition of a video camera, microphone, and a few other things Jim was poised for real-time interactions with colleagues in far away places. Jim got down to work -- connected with his colleagues. The technology was terrific. But when the first session was over, Jim was horrified. There was no on/off switch on the video camera. How could he know if someone was looking in? There was no on/off switch on the microphone. How could he know if someone was listening in? In self-defense, Jim attached a 3X5 index card to the top of his video camera; he can flip the card down to cover the camera lens whenever he wants to insure visual privacy. Gaining control over his microphone was a bit tougher; Jim has sewn a small felt bag to cover the microphone and mute the sound.

This example from video-conferencing begins to highlight the importance for users to have control over the technology they use. More generally, the example points to the larger issue of user autonomy.

This workshop builds on the organizers' previous work on designing computer systems for responsible computer use [1, 2, 3, 4]. In the workshop, we draw on the organizers' background and participants' research and design experiences (1) to identify positive designs and abuses of user autonomy in computer systems and (2) to generate design principles for protecting user autonomy in the design of future systems.

WORKSHOP GOALS

To explore with colleagues the meaning and value of user autonomy, the nature of the relationship between user autonomy and control of computer systems, and the elements of interface and system design that affect user autonomy.
To provide a forum (opportunity) for colleagues to discuss issues of user autonomy in computer systems that have arisen from their own design experiences.
To work with colleagues to identify positive designs and abuses of user autonomy in computer systems.
To work with colleagues to generate design principles for protecting user autonomy in the design of future systems.

REFERENCES

Friedman, B., & Millett, L. (1995, May). "It's the computer's fault" -- Reasoning about computers as moral agents. Conference companion of the conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '95 (pp. 226- 227). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
Friedman, B., & Nissenbaum, H. (in press). Bias in computer systems. ACM Transactions on Information Systems.
Friedman, B., & Nissenbaum, H. (1995, May). Workshop at CHI '95: Minimizing bias in computer systems. Conference companion of the conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '95 (p. 444). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
Nissenbaum, H. (1994). Computing and accountability. Communications of the ACM, 37(1), 72-80.

(c) Copyright held by the authors.

User Autonomy: Who Should Control What and When?
b_friedm@colby.edu