Based on two case studies of the design of electronic communication networks developed in the public and private sector, this article explores the barriers within current design cultures to account for the needs and diversity of users. Whereas the constraints on user-centered design are usually described in macrosociological terms, in which the user–technology relation is merely understood as a process of the inclusion or exclusion of users in design, the authors suggest that it is important to adopt a semiotic approach. Moreover, they argue that we need to take into account the gender identity of designers to understand how design practices in ICT prioritize male users. The article shows how configuring the user as “everybody” and the use of the “I-methodology” are important constraints in the development of technologies that aim to reach users in all their diversity.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Akrich, M. 1992. The de-scription of technical objects. In Shaping technology/building society, studies in socio technical change, edited by W. E. Bijker and J. Law, 205-224. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2.
Akrich, M. 1995. User representations: Practices, methods and sociology. In Managing technology in society: The approach of constructive technology assessment, edited by A. Rip, T. J. Misa, and J. Schot, 167-184. London: Pinter Publishers.
3.
Akrich, M. and B. Latour. 1992. A summary of a convenient vocabulary for the semiotics of human and nonhuman assemblies. In On shaping technology/building society, edited by W. Byner and J. Law. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Berg, A. 1996. Digital feminism. Trondheim: Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Centre for Technology and Society. Rapport nr.28.
6.
Brosnan, M. 1998. Technophobia: The psychological impact of information technology.New York: Routledge.
7.
Brouwer-Janse, M. D. 1996.User central design: Interaction between people and applications.In The contours of multimedia: Recent technological, theoretical and empirical development, edited by N. W. Jankowski andL. Hanssen,149-159. Luton, UK: University of Luton Press.
8.
Bullinga, M. 1995. Spinnen in het digitale web; politieke en maatschappelijke gevolgen van de Digitale Snelweg. Amsterdam: Instituut voor Publiek en Politiek.
9.
Cassell, J., and H. Jenkins. 1998. Chess for girls? Feminism and computer games. In From Barbieto Mortal Kombat, edited by J. Cassell and H. Jenkins. Gender and Computer Games.
10.
Clarke, Adele E., and Theresa Montini. 1993. The many faces of RU 486: Tales of situated knowledges and technological contestations. Science, Technology and Human values18 (1): 42-78.
11.
Cockburn, C. 1983. Brothers: Male dominance and technological change. UK: Pluto.
12.
Cockburn, C., and S. Ormrod. 1993. Gender & technology in the making. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13.
Connell, R. W. 1987. Gender & power. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
14.
Connell, R. W. 1995. Masculinities. Cambridge: Polity Press.
15.
Cowan, R. S. 1987. The consumption junction: A proposal for research strategies in the sociology of technology. In The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology andhistory of technology, edited by W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes,and T. J. Pinch, 261-280. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16.
Cussins, C. 1998. Ontological choreography: Agency for women patients in an infertility clinic. In Differences in medicine: Unravelling practices, techniques, and bodies, edited by A. Mol and M. Berg. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
17.
Docampa Rama, M. 2001. Technology generations: Handling complex user interfaces. Ph.D. diss., University of Eindhoven. Eindhoven: Universitaire Drukkerij, the Netherlands.
18.
du Gay, P., S. Hall, L. Janes, H. Mackay, and K. Negus. 1999. Doing cultural studies: The story of the Sony Walkman. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
European Commission–DG XIII-C/E. 1998. Telematics applications programme “design for all” for an inclusive information society. In Design for all and ICT business practice: Addressing the barriers. Examples of best practice. EC Ref. Number 98.70.022.
20.
Faulkner, W. 2000. The power and the pleasure? A research agenda for “making gender stick” to engineers. Science, Technology, & Human Values25 (1): 87–119.
21.
Flint, J. 1994. Handleiding XS4ALL/Digitale Stad. Amsterdam: Archive DDS.
22.
Friedman, A. 1989. Computer system development: History, organisation and implementation. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
23.
Gomart, E., and A. Hennion. 1999. A sociology of attachment: Music amateurs, drug users. In Actor network theory and after, edited by J. Law and J. Hassard. Oxford: Blackwell and the Sociological Review.
24.
Grossman, L. K. 1995. The electronic republic: Reshaping democracy in the information age. New York: Viking.
25.
Harding, S. G. 1986. The science question in feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
26.
Heath, D. 1997. Bodies, antibodies and modest interventions. In Cyborgs and citadels: Anthropogical interventions in emerging sciences and technologies, edited by G. L. Downey and J. Dumit. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press.
27.
Hirsch, P., and J. Gillespie. 2001. Unpacking path dependence: Differential valuations history across disciplines. In Path dependence and creation, edited by T. Garud and P. Karnoe. London: LEA Press.
28.
Intromart. 1996. Landelijke Interesse-meting naar de Electronische Stad New Topia. Een telefonisch onderzoek. Rapport nr. 42702/JiB/EB. Hilversum, April 1996.
29.
Kettler, R. 1997. Virtual city: Project contract. Philips Research, RWB-510-ir-93220.
30.
Kleif, T., W. Faulkner. 2003. I’m no athlete [but] I can make this thing dance! Men’s pleasures in technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values28 (2): 296-325.
31.
Kline, R. K., and T. J. Pinch. 1996. Users as agents of technological change: The social construction of the automobile in the rural United States. Technology and Culture37:763-779.
32.
Klinge, I. 1998. Gender and bones: The production of osteoporosis 1941–1996.Ph.D. diss., University of Utrecht, the Netherlands.
33.
Kotler, P. 1994. Marketing management: Analysis, planning, implementation, and control. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
34.
Laegran, A. 2003. Escape vehicles: Internet and the automobile in a local/global intersection. Forthcoming in How users matter: The co-construction of users and technologies, edited by N. E. J. Oudshoorn and T. J. Pinch. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
35.
Laurel, B. 1990. The art of human-computer interface design reading. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
36.
Lie, M. 1995. Technology and masculinity: The case of the computer. European Journal of Women’s Studies2:379–394.
37.
Lie, M., and K. H. Sorensen, eds. 1996. Making technology our own? Domesticating technology into everyday life. Oslo, Norway: Scandinavian University Press.
38.
Lindsay, C. 2003. Constructing the TRS-80 user: Twenty years on. Forthcoming in How users matter: The co-construction of users and technologies, edited by N. E. J. Oudshoornand T. J. Pinch. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
39.
Moser, I. 2000. Against normalisation: Subverting norms of ability and disability. Science as Culture9 (2): 201-240.
40.
Noble, D. 1984. Forces of production: A social history of industrial automation. New York: Knopf.
41.
Norman, D., and S. W. Draper, eds. 1986. User centered system design. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
42.
Oldenziel, R. 1999. Making technology masculine: Men, women and modern machines in America. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
43.
Oudshoorn, N. E. J. 1999. On masculinities, technologies and pain: The testing of male contraceptives technologies in the clinic and the media. Science, Technology, & Human Values24 (2): 265-290.
44.
Oudshoorn, N. E. J. Imagined men: Representations of masculinities in discourses on male contraceptive technology. In Bodies of technology: Women’s involvement with reproductive medicine, edited by A. Saetnan, N. Oudshoorn, and M. Kirejczyk, 123-146. Columbus: Ohio University Press.
45.
Oudshoorn, N. E. J. 2003. The male pill: A biography of a technology in the making. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
46.
Oudshoorn, N. E. J., and T. J. Pinch, eds. 2003. How users matter: The co-construction of users and technologies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
47.
Pacey, A. 1983. The culture of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
48.
Pacey, A. 1999. Meaning in Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
49.
Patrick, A. S. 1997. Media lessons from the national capital FreeNet. Communications of the ACM40 (7): 74-80.
50.
Ploeg, I. v.d. 1998. Prosthetic bodies: Female embodiment in reproductive technologies. Ph.D. diss., University of Maastricht, the Netherlands.
51.
Quintas, P. 1996. Software by design. In Communication by design: The politics of information and communication technologies, edited by R. Mansell and R. Silverstone. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
52.
Ramakers, S. 1996. New Topia: Investigation of the potential use of a virtual city. Philips Research, report no. RWR-547-New Topia-9654-RE.
53.
Rheingold, H. 1993. The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
54.
Rommes, E. 2000.Gendereduser-representations.In Women,work and computerization: Charting a course to the future, edited by E. Balka and R. Smith, 137-145. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
55.
Rommes, E. 2002a.Gender scripts and the Internet: The design and use of Amsterdam’s Digital City. Ph.D.thesis, University of Twente, Faculty of Philosophy and Social Sciences, Enschede,the Netherlands.
56.
Rommes, E. 2002b. Worlds apart: Exclusion-processes in DDS. In Digital cities II: Computational and sociological approaches, edited by M. Tanabe, P. van den Besselaar, and T. Ishida, 219-232. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
57.
Rommes, E. Forthcoming. Creating places for women on the Internet: The creation of a “women’s square” in a digital city. The European Journal for Women’s Studies.
58.
Rommes, E., E. van Oost, and N. Oudshoorn.1999. Gender and the design of a digital city. Information Technology, Communication and Society (2) 4: 476-495.
59.
Saetnan, A., N. Oudshoorn, and M. Kirejczyk, eds. 2000. Bodies of technology: Women’s involvement with reproductive medicine. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
60.
Schalken, Kees, and Pieter Tops. 1994. The Digital City: A study into the backgrounds and opinions of its residents. Paper presented at the Canadian Community Networks Conference, August 15-17 1994, Ottawa, Canada. http://cwis.kub.nl/%7Efrw/people/schalken/dceng/html (accessed January 20, 1999).
61.
Schuler, D. 2001. Digital cities and digital citizens. Paper presented at the Second Kyoto Meeting on Digital Cities, Kyoto, Japan.
62.
Shade, L. R. 1997. Access to the internet for women’s groups across Canada. Paper presented at Work and computerization, spinning a web from past to future. Proceedings of the 6th International IFIP conference. Springer.
63.
Silverstone, R., and E. Hirsch. 1992. Consuming technologies: Media and informationin domestic spaces. London: Routledge.
64.
Singleton, V. 1996. Feminism, sociology of scientific knowledge and postmodernism: Politics, theory and me. Social Studies of Science26:445-468.
65.
Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau. 2000. Digitalisering van de leefwereld. Een onderzoek naar informatie-en communicatie technologie en sociale ongelijkheid, Universiteit Utrecht, the Netherlands.
66.
Sorensen, K. H. 1992. Towards a feminized technology? Gendered values in the construction of technology. Social Studies of Science22:5-31.
67.
Sorensen, K. H., M. Aune, and M. Hatling. 2000. Against linearity—On the cultural appropriation of science and technology. In Between understanding and trust: The public, science and technology, edited by M. Dierkes and C. von Grote, 237-257. Australia, Canada, France, Germany, India, Japan, Luxembourg, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Russia, Singapore, and Switzerland: Harwood Academic Publishers.
Stikker, M. 1994. DDS,Socialebouwstenenvooreenelektronischesamenleving, Archive DDS.
70.
Turkle, S. 1991.Computational reticence: Why women fear the intimate machine. In Technology and women’s voices, edited by C. Kramarae, 41-61. Boston: Routledge Kegan Paul.
71.
van Bastelaer, B. 1998. Social learning in public sector: The case of digital cities. In collaboration with C. Lobet-Maris. Namur, Belgium: SLIM, University of Namur.
72.
van den Besselaar, P., and D. Beckers. 1998. Demographics and sociographics of the Digital City. In Community computing and support systems: Lecture notes in computer science, edited by T. Ishida, vol. 1519, 109-125. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer-Verlag.
73.
van den Besselaar, P., I. Melis, and D. Beckers. 2000. Digital cities: Organization, content and use. In Digital cities: Experiences, technologies and future perspectives: Lecture notes in computer science 1765, edited by T. Ishida and K. Isbister, 18-32.
74.
van der Haar, R. 1995. DDS 3 interface workplan for the design of DDS 3.0. Amsterdam.
75.
van der Krogt, T. P. W. M., and C. W. Vroom. 1989. Organisatie is beweging. Culemborg, the Netherlands: Lemma.
76.
Van Kammen, J. 2000. Conceiving contraceptives, PhD dissertation University of Amsterdam, Print Partners Ipskamp.
77.
van Meerten, R. 1994. Projectvoorstel de Digitale Stad, Archive City of Amsterdam BBI/93/103/1, September 27.
78.
van Oost, E.. 2000. Making the computer masculine. In Women, work and computerization: Chartinga course to the future, edited by E. Balka and R. Smith,9-16.Dordrecht,the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
79.
Varley, P. 1991. What’s really happening in Santa Monica? Technology Review (November/December): 43-51.
80.
Wajcman, J. 1991. Feminism confronts technology. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
81.
Weber, R. C.. 1999. Manufacturing gender in military cockpit design. In The social shaping of technology,2nd ed., edited by D. MacKenzie and J. Wajeman, 372-381. Buckingham: Open University Press.
82.
Woolgar, S. 1991. Configuring the user—The case of usability trials. In A sociology of monsters—Essays on power, technology and domination, edited by J. Law, 58-99. London: Routledge.
83.
Wyatt, S. 2003. Non-users also matter: The construction of users and technologies. In How users matter: The co-construction of users and technologies, edited by N. E. J. Oudshoorn and Trevor Pinch, 41-56. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
84.
Wyatt, S., F. Henwood, N. Miller, and P. Senker, eds. 2000. Technology and in/equality, questioning the information society. London: Routledge.
