Slashdot Mirror
How Responsible Are App Developers For Decisions Their Users Make?
itwbennett writes: In a blog post, Rado Kotorov, Chief Innovation Officer at Information Builders asserts that the creators of enterprise apps implicitly assume some of the responsibility for other people's decision making. He says it's not just developers, but anyone who is involved, from defining the concept, to requirements gathering, to final implementation. Thus, the creators of the app have an ethical obligation to ensure that people can reach the right conclusions from the facts and the way they are presented in the app.
In the real world "an ethical obligation" is no obligation at all. Nice circlejerk of an article, though.
Jeesh. Why is this even a question?
Anyone who has ever done any reading on usability knows that we need to craft the interface to the user.
That usually means different interfaces for different cultures.
For example, Japan and Germany have general populations that are far more used to multi-choice, complex UIs than the US and UK. They tend to prefer their UX to be a bit more technical than other cultures.
Engineers tend to design for themselves; not for others.
Read The Design of Everyday Things. It's quite life-changing.
"In a blog post, Rado Kotorov, Chief Innovation Officer at Information Builders asserts that the creators of enterprise apps implicitly assume some of the responsibility for other people's decision making. He says it's not just developers, but anyone who is involved, from defining the concept, to requirements gathering, to final implementation. Thus, the creators of the app have an ethical obligation to ensure that people can reach the right conclusions from the facts and the way they are presented in the app."
I call bullshit. This is simply another step down a slippery slope that removes more personal responsibility.
This is the very definition of the nanny State.
Good luck with that. They keep building better idiots.
From a philosophical or pure cause and effect approach, sure, the makers of an app have some responsibility for the effect it has on people and what they do as a result. From a legal/liability standpoint, generally not.
The article writer is just saying to keep in mind that how your app behaves, how it looks, how it presents data, can have a real effect on its users, so you should consider the implications of your decisions.
When someone says, "Any fool can see
If the description of the app were "this is buggy adware that crashes all the time and steals all your personal info and can barely fulfill its nominal function" then more people would be able to reach the right conclusions.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
No, but if Ford put a turn signal in a non-standard place or labeled the signal 'apparatus for signifying intention to create a curve' it would definitely confuse and possibly lead to accidents. Or if the factory tires weren't tested and fell off after 1 day, then your analogy would work.
First off, I think what the author is claiming is bullshit. He's just reiterating stuff that we already have laws and protections for. We don't need a new bank of BS intellectual property laws, or CEO protection laws to throw at developers when the first thing doesn't go correctly.
Now on to my main point:
The summary makes it sound like the author was talking about ALL apps and app developers, however after reading the article, it's clear that he's referring to business analytics and applications that people would use to gather data and make business decisions. There is a little bit of language that makes it sound like he might secretly wish that it applied to all app developers, but that's not really the takeaway from the article.
His claims are still completely moronic: if an app pretends to offer a service and then can't deliver, or provides data that leads to bad decisions, then (1) people will stop using it once this is discovered and (2) we have consumer protection laws if it is found that the developers did this intentionally and then deliberately misrepresented what they had to offer, would protect the people they screwed.
This isn't a question of "apps" or "applications" or "data," this is an old idea that has been around for literally ages and someone wrote an article while masturbating to the words "big data," "analytics," and "apps."
What scares me is that idiot politicians and business majors will see this and think "hey, yeah! I don't have to be responsible for bad business decisions in a new way!" Fucking idiots. How much lower can we go on the idiot totem pole?
Yet the only way I can imagine meeting that goal is to have a self-aware AI that can in real time (actually it might have to be prescient) determine the users thought process so that it can morph the UI into a state that will present the information to the user in a manner that will lead them to the right conclusion. We can now move on to a discussion of perception and truth.
Of course! That's why every damn application I use these days has its own "skins" and its own custom layout. Using a standard, familiar window layout would allow me to actually get some work done without having to search for the menus and buttons. Can't have that, can we?
I figure by 2030 or so my 6-digit UID will be something to brag about.
Users are responsible for their own decisions. If developers have an ethical obligation, then it's to inform and train users, so that they can make better decisions.
Who ordered that?
Thinking that is why you will never make it to the ranks of upper management. Upper management knows it's all about building their own personal fiefdom and nothing else. That's why upper management thinks techies are idiots and vice versa. Our goals are 180 degrees from each other.
A company designs and builds a car to safely drive at 70 mph.
You drive at 140mph in the rain, hydroplane and lose control hitting a bridge column, and die. I'd say the fault lies with the driver. What about you?
Said company puts in an ignition switch that's faulty and disconnects the entire control system while driving at 70mph and ignores reports of this problem for a decade. That would not only be the fault of said company, but adds layers of premeditation still to be decided.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Yep, to this day, I"m still amazed that we have to have warning tags on hair blow dryers, that not only have it in print, but also with cartoon like diagrams warning you to NOT use the blow dryer while in the bathtub filled with water.
Seriously, I wonder if the depth of our litigious society has started to seriously interfere with natural selection, by keeping idiot genes in the pool when they should have weeded themselves out years ago.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I think I can answer these all with one of two responses. You pick the correct one:
1. Shit Happens
2. Use common sense (what happened to this option over the years?).
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
This whole argument is stupid. It's not the hammer, baseball bat, knife, gun, ... manufacturer's responsibility if you use their product to produce inappropriate results. It's their responsibility to make sure that it can be used safely for it's intended purpose, but not guard against every possible misuse the average idiot can come up with. Is it irresponsible of the manufacturer that I can swing my hammer at my toe? Should all hammers be built so that they will only swing when the target is an approved force receptacle?
if there is a pedestrian on the bridge, is he responsible for his own death? after all it is well known that people get hit by cars when they decide to walk near the road
If it was a "simple" accident through no egregious fault of the driver, manufacturer of the car, engineer that designed the bridge, builder of the bridge, or the pedestrian, then yes shit happens and it sucks. Life isn't pretty and bad things happen all the time.
If, however, there is demonstrable fault on any of the related parties (maybe the pedestrian was naked and distracted the driver...) then the offending parties should be held accountable.
What this means in terms of TFA is that if an engineer inputs bad/incomplete data to a CAD system and the result is a bridge that is not suited for the location that it is actually being built for, then the fault is with the person using the program and not that of the developer. If, on the other hand, the user inputs all the data and it is all correct but the program outputs a bad design, then the software maker has some responsibility (though the users have a responsibility to check the output too).
if the car has a speedometer that goes to 140 mph, can the driver assume that the car can be driven at that speed?
When there are contradicting variables (speed limit, driver skill, weather, visibility, etc..), no and it's the driver's responsibility if they do so.
If you want to take it to a safe location (track) to try to do that, then more power to you and it's mostly on your own head.
Porsche isn't responsible for someone taking their 991 GT3 out to the track, misjudging their apex, and running into the wall. They are, however, responsible for a design flaw that caused some engines to catch fire while being appropriately operated in normal driving conditions.
if the owner of a car knows full well that their ignition switch is acting strange and they keep driving the car anyway, are they responsible for the resulting deaths?
If you know something is dangerous and do not take measures to address it (fixing it yourself, not driving it, etc..), then yes you are 100% responsible for your actions and the results. I know the engine in one of my cars has a couple of design flaws that can lead to a catastrophic engine failure in a measurable percentage of cars. I also know that the manufacturer failed to acknowledge the issue and address it. I am also aware that there are now after market solutions that address most of these problems. Finally I am also aware that it is fully on my head that I continue to drive the car with the risk of losing my engine because I currently opt not to proactively address the items at this time.
The problem with this particular argument which you fail to grasp is that while GM knew of the problem for a long time, they made light of it at best (telling people not to use a keychain) and actively hid it at worst (never issuing a recall or warning to owners, you only got the keychain response IF it had failed and you complained). I also believe that even in those cases where people experienced the failure and got the keychain BS, they weren't informed that their airbag was being disabled at the same time. If that is indeed the case, then GM is doubly responsible as it not only told them not using a keychain solved the problem, but it also implied that the vehicle was otherwise safe and operating as expected (the average person does not understand that the airbag is tied to the ignition).
Or, alternatively, the author of the article has a similar ethical obligation that the readers reach the same conclusion as the author.
Who? Rado Kotorov is just trolling, who cares what he says, not like he's a judge or senator that can make a difference. So tired of "omg look this guy that doesn't matter said this thing on a blog, we should all care!"
my karma will be here long after I'm gone