I can’t let you eat that, Dave. Have some carrot juice instead.

In their paper ‘Fit4Life: The Design of a Persuasive Technology Promoting Healthy Behaviour and Ideal Weight’ Purpura et al put forward a satirical critical design for a persuasive technology called Fit4Life, which uses extreme persuasive computing methods and data tracking to ‘help’ its users lose weight. The first half of the paper is played completely straight, without an acknowledgement that Fit4Life is actually a fictional, critical design. By doing this, the authors claim that readers would have to begin critically questioning the design themselves, rather than be complacent due to knowing it to be fictional. However, the design becomes increasingly outrageous as it is revealed (culminating in the HAL 9000-esque “I’m sorry, Dave, you shouldn’t eat that”) meaning that even the most oblivious of readers are likely to recognise the satirical tone.

The extreme examples of data tracking and persuasive techniques are used to provoke readers into reflecting on when the design goes too far. The authors make the point of giving a clear distinction between persuasion and coercion, using the system’s visible “beacon” as an example, saying that it “appears as both a signal for help and an element of shame”. Other researchers have explored the issues of ethical persuasive computing and put forward guidelines for what to avoid. Berdichevsky and Neuenschwander put forward that the creators of persuasive technology must anticipate and assume responsibility for all “reasonably predictable” outcomes – in the case for Fit4Life, the user feeling strong negative social pressure for not conforming “correctly” could result in many unfortunate scenarios. (D. Berdichevsky and E. Neuenschwander. Toward an ethics of persuasive technology.)  Before utilizing such powerful persuasive techniques in extreme forms such as this, designers need to consider as many potential outcomes as they reasonably can and reflect on if the use of persuasion is justifiable.

The authors also point out another issue that systems like this have – the user’s ability to reflect on their situation and use their own judgement to decide on a course of action. Fit4Life is again an extreme example of this, with the system telling the user what to eat and do rather than giving subtle hints. However, it’s arguable that the difference to existing products is fairly academic – when users are told what their weight should be (through the all-important BMI) and what they should/shouldn’t eat, users are effectively having these decisions made for them. The authors note that in order to have meaningful, lasting change, the system should encourage reflection and mindfulness to help change the user’s attitudes towards food. Instead, the system discourages any free thought regarding diet and exercise.

The work that I have identified to talk about this week is Khan Academy, which offers teachers a simple but deep system for tracking and quantifying students’ progress, assessment and learning. Students are also given progress tracking mechanisms such as a gamified badge system.