{"id":6940,"date":"2019-11-19T16:09:55","date_gmt":"2019-11-19T21:09:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/studentwork.prattsi.org\/foundations\/?p=6940"},"modified":"2019-11-22T09:53:55","modified_gmt":"2019-11-22T14:53:55","slug":"interview-ux-its-social-concerns","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/studentwork.prattsi.org\/foundations\/2019\/11\/19\/interview-ux-its-social-concerns\/","title":{"rendered":"Interview: UX & its social concerns"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

I recently had the opportunity to interview Nina Mistry, the co-founder, and chief product officer of Artistic License Creative. She has been connected to the UX filed for more than two decades and my interview goal is to gain insights about what drives this profession today and her understanding of technology within our social realm. Artistic License Creative is a start-up that is driven by social change and innovation through the medium of digital technology. While the company is based in Toronto we met on her recent visit to New York where she shared her views on the UX field and social concerns surrounding it.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tI had prepared a set of questions to structure the interview and almost all areas of interest were covered. It started with sharing details about herself and how she landed in the UX field. She is originally from Mumbai, India where she completed her undergraduate education in textile design. She graduated in the year 1999, a year where the internet had landed in most of our households. She believes that it was the internet that helped people become entrepreneurs overnight. \u201cIt made the whole world become your market,\u201d says Nina. Her first job was as a designer at a small scale e-commerce company in India. After this, she went on to work with the software development team of interactive television that revolutionized live voting in India. She has also contributed to the design of the Target app and continues worked on many such projects even today.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nina believes the whole idea of UX truly came to life when Apple launched its iPhone. She believes that the Iphone\u2019s scroll user experience with the pinch and scroll and embedded keyboard scroll were game-changers in the field of technology. This is when design moved beyond its aesthetic principals and become an interactive experience. Her company Artistic License Creative (url in references) emphasizes on delivering content and experience(i.e. ways the content is consumed. Her company collaborates with people and works on projects that are driven by a cause. Whether it\u2019s making documentaries, e-learning platforms websites or mobile applications they are driven by the purpose of making a difference.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nina believes that it\u2019s her curiosity and love for simplicity that makes her a relevant UX designer today. She thrives on the fulfillment derived by watching users use, react and cherish her designs. \u201cWatching my vision materialize into an experience is the best feeling ever,\u201d says Nina. The field design experience today seems to be divided into two distinct fields the User Research and User Experience field. When asked about this categorization she expressed that the main goal of a designer should seek solutions and there should be no distinct dividing lines in the process. The research process builds curiosity and sets a solid foundation for the design process. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Her research process mainly includes interviews and observations. Nina says \u201cSony conducted a focus group for their boom box. When asked about the color preference 70% picked black with 30% picked yellow. At the end of the session, participants were given the boom box as a gift for their participation and had to pick it up on their way out. All participants picked the black one. When people are observed they behave differently. It\u2019s usually not what they say.\u201d This relates to McGrath, “Methodology matters\u201d reading which discusses the limitations of research. The article talks about how the limitation of one method can be covered by another and how using more than one research method would help in more realistic insights. For example, Sony\u2019s interview flaw was coved by observing the audience making a realistic choice in person. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tFurthermore, her design process is driven by the AGILE method which involves quick sketching, user testing and validation followed by multiple iterations. She says \u201cmore than a design process, it\u2019s a co-creating process. It\u2019s not just about user opinions but you think like the user.\u201d We then moved on to discuss any specific experience or innovation that has caught her eye in recent times, she stated that a big influencer to determining this is how ethically the product is made and functions. When further asked about unethical innovations of technology today she discussed the emotional impact of Instagram\u2019s need for maximum likes for validation leading to anxiety to FaceBook\u2019s \u201cfake news\u201d targeted at psychological warfare. This connects to our discussion on Vaidhyanathan’s, \u201cAnti-Social Media\u201d which suggests only a limited online newsfeed for it\u2019s its user. Nina re-iterated Vaidhyanathan\u2019s take on users being oblivious to counterclaims taking away the reality of the situation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

She states Aza Raskin, the creator of the infinite scroll says that he \u201cregrets creating it in the first place.\u201d Elaborating more on the infinite scroll she states the user is targeted with ads\u00a0 and news aimed to change their opinion. And the common user is taken for granted and exploited for their lack of awareness. Nina states Google having all our information from our bank accounts to our heath records is unethical. And stresses that the \u201cI agree to the terms and conditions check-box that people check is the biggest lie, as if you read the terms you would probably not agree.\u201d This again connects to Shoshana Zuboff\u2019s \u201csurveillance capitalism and the prospects of an information civilization\u201d which discusses our lack of privacy as a price we pay or collateral damage for using technology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tWhen asked about threats associated with design in the future Nina mentioned that the biggest threat with artificial intelligence and machine learning replacing human jobs. What kind of jobs would humans do it machines do most of what we do today? How will we adapt to this change? Would third world countries even have the infrastructure to adapt? She predicts that there will come a time where there will be no jobs leading eventually leading to an economic setback.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tTo conclude, speaking to Nina was a great way to validate all our class discussions associated with technology and social concerns. Nina was open and thrilled to answer all the questions. She made it a fun discussion where we both were sharing our views and adding on to each other’s arguments. Overall, she concluded with saying as a young aspiring design professional one should always have the wonder and curiosity along with seeking ethical solutions. \u201cBe less motivated by monetary gains and more motivated by social good.\u201d She concluded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

References<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n