David Roedl

As a new President takes office, the online world is full of speculation about the future of Internet policy in America. Hopes are high, given that President Obama is considered to the most tech-savvy political candidate to date; in fact many are touting him as the first politician to really get the nature of web 2.0. A recent memo from John Horrigan of the PEW Internet project offers Obama some thought-provoking suggestions for technology policy that are motivated by an interesting analysis of the evolution of internet use.

Specifically, the memo highlights the role of user innovation in continually shaping the nature of the web and its importance to society. According to Horrigan, as late as the 1990’s, the internet was primarily conceived of as a vehicle for one-to-many communication, similar to traditional media systems like television. This shifted dramatically during the 90’s as many users began to actively converse with one another in dial-up online communities. The phenomenon of many-to-many communication was taken to the next level with the emergence of blogs around 2004; millions of users were suddenly broadcasting their own perspectives across the web. Horrigan suggests that the latest evolution of the trend is the mass collaboration enabled by broadband and mobile internet access.

Horrigan argues that the throughout its history, the web has come to be defined by “user co-creation“. In his words, “turning users loose to find ways to use communications capacity is the animating principle for innovation in the digital society“. Coming from the user-centered design tradition, this principle is not new to me. However, I find it interesting to imagine how this consideration might influence the formation of technology policy. In my discipline, we believe strongly in giving users a central role in the design of products and systems through methods such as ethnography, participatory design, and usability evaluation. But of course, every design is constrained and influenced by the organizational, political and economic systems that it inhabits. What would it mean then to apply a user-centered philosophy to the formation of these meta-structures?

Horrigan advocates two possible implications for communications policy in the U.S. First, he suggests that the diversity of mobile internet users is a potentially huge source for creative adaptation. According to results from PEW Internet surveys, “users would appreciate policies for wireless devices and networks that keep the gadgets and their connections open to outside innovation.” Google’s Android is one example of an industry-created platform that provides access to outside developers. Going beyond such voluntary programs, Horrigan suggests that policymakers should to take action to “make sure openness is one of the rules of the wireless road.” While I am unsure how open development models could be mandated by the government, I agree that it would be a great thing for users.

Second, Horrigan addresses possible policy solutions for connecting Americans who currently are without access to the internet. Discussion about digital divide has traditionally focused on issues of physical access or education. I find it insightful that Horrigan also implicates poor usability of technology as a barrier to adoption. Despite growing understanding of user-centered approaches in the IT industry, Horrigan correctly reminds us that there is significant room for improvement: “the fact remains that the nature of modern gadgetry is daunting to many people, especially older ones.” How can the government improve this situation? A good starting point would be to focus on improving the usability of government e-services. Personally, I have often been dismayed at some of the extremely unnavigable and poorly designed government websites that exist. Public services, more than anything else, need to be as user-friendly and accessible as possible. Horrigan recommends that the new administration “consider guidelines for contractors serving less tech-oriented population segments,” and thus “play a catalytic role in nudging industry to improve usability and relevance through procurement.”

Consider a more direct approach to influencing the private sector: the government might try to legislate usability requirements for technology products similar to handicap accessibility laws for buildings. That is perhaps too restrictive of a measure to gain much support, but its interesting to consider the potential benefits and damages. In general, I think its a positive thing when user-centered values and approaches transcend the context of interface design to influence larger societal discussions about improving public services and providing equal access for all citizens.

References
Obama’s Online Opportunities: What Our Research Suggests about where President-elect Obama’s Technology Policy May Lead
By John B. Horrigan, Associate Director for Research, Pew Internet & American Life Project