Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

A design space for Trust-enabling Interaction Design


Published on

To introduce and assess the expressiveness of a design space for trust-enabling interaction design.

  • Be the first to comment

A design space for Trust-enabling Interaction Design

  1. 1. Trust-enabling Interaction Design
  2. 2. Theoretical underpinnings HCI perspective • How computing and computational artifacts relate to the human condition. Trust perspective • Social-technical aspects of trustful relationships Human Computer Trust • Trust-enabling interactions Intercept Human-Computer interactions with the dynamic nature of social-trust relationships
  3. 3. key principles The ongoing cultural shift • The existing ever-widening range of digital artifacts is transforming our daily lives. How we relate to technology is • less and less about the… devices; and • more about the… activities. Information technology context is • becoming pervasive; and Computing is • becoming ubiquitous
  4. 4. Because... Trust is... • a key element in human relations. With Trust... • Actions are more decisive. • Activities proceed more smoothly. (e.g. Yan, 2010; Mcknight, 1996; Constantine, 2006, Preece, 2004) (e.g. Coleman, 1988; Weber, 2003; Fukuyama, 1995; Luhmann, 2000; Gambetta, 1998)
  5. 5. Contextual aim Trust contemplates • Social phenomena • A complex two-way relationship Trust emerges from • An interpersonal organization • A specific social situation • A specific social context • Positive experiences • Interactions • Active participation • Cooperative relations SUPPORT & SUSTAIN
  6. 6. Multidiciplinary • Multiple interpretations Research include areas such as… • Sociology (Good, 2000), • Political science (Fukuyama, 1995; Luhmann, 2000); • Economics (Dasgupta, 2000); • Socio-biology (Batenson, 1998); • Cognitive science (Bachrach, 2001); • Computer sciences (McKnight, 2002); and even • Education (Hoy, 2003). Contextual aim
  7. 7. Trust notions (social science)
  8. 8. Trust notions (Computer science) Computer science perspectives • Separates the trust concept in 2 distinct domain definitions: operational and internal
  9. 9. Contextual aim Trusting represents • A reinsurance element Trusting comes associated • With certain properties that help to support users intended behaviours Trusting relies on • The identification of trustworthy making qualities
  10. 10. How to determine if a situation is in fact trustworthy? By observing the trust warranty signs Bacharach et. al., 2007
  11. 11. The research contemplates A need for identify 1. Trust social values (qualities) that underlies people’s trust beliefs 1. The reliability of those trustworthy making qualities 1. How those (trustworthy making qualities) are represented in today’s ongoing cultural shift
  12. 12. Results (associated notions) Trusting is… • process of believing in others behaviours Reflects a • risk While some are more willing to take the risks others don’t Level of commitment of both parts Strong incentives to believe that determinate person, service or tool is in fact trustworthy
  13. 13. Human Computer Trust model
  14. 14. Predominant factors
  15. 15. Refections Trust-enabling interactions systems include qualities like: • Enables more honest & transparent behaviours • Facilitates the... Prediction of others activities patterns • Enables the perception of others competencies • Creates/supports emphatic relations which, fosters Social engagement • Diminish group hostility which, increase group commitment • Foster group motivation & willingness to cooperate
  16. 16. Design space A method to evaluate trust-enabling interaction design qualities What influences the user's predisposition to trust a particular system? Motivation Willingness Competency Predictability Reciprocity Benovelence Honesty What supports users’ beliefs that the system features will benefit them? Driven Question Sub-set of Question Analytic dimentions What features support the users' confidence in someone or something to perform a particular desired action? What features support the users' belief in the integrity of the system and its users? Expectations Rational perception Emotional perception Contributes Contributes Set of trust-enable interaction Features Trust Predisposition Relationships Commitments Intentions Predisposition to cooperate Predisposition to relate Behaviours Engagement
  17. 17. Usefulness Artifact-centered  Value-centered This toolset provides designers lenses to • Assess the act of design for trust-enable interactions; and • Evaluate if their design propositions have been reflected in the design outcome. Critical design  Reflect on values  Understand the design options  Evaluate the design propositions
  18. 18. Example
  19. 19. Thank you!