Comments on: Security Lens: The Patterns

By: Design with Intent | Cognitive Lens: The Patterns

Design with Intent | Cognitive Lens: The Patterns — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 07:25:19 +0000

[...] three mechanisms at work here: ‘appeal to authority’ in terms of attitude / behaviour guidance, perceived threat to users who ‘disobey’ authoritative messages, and desire to become more like the ‘pros’ by [...]

By: Design with Intent | Visual Lens: The Patterns

Design with Intent | Visual Lens: The Patterns — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 07:25:02 +0000

By: Design with Intent | Architectural Lens: The Patterns

Design with Intent | Architectural Lens: The Patterns — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 07:21:13 +0000

[...] The Architectural Lens draws on techniques used to influence user behaviour in architecture, urban planning and related disciplines such as traffic management and crime prevention through environmental design (see also the Security lens). [...]

By: Design with Intent | The Design with Intent Toolkit v.0.9

Design with Intent | The Design with Intent Toolkit v.0.9 — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 07:42:38 +0000

[...] What you’ve done [...]

By: Mike Stenhouse

Mike Stenhouse — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 15:23:09 +0000

This might be a bit of a stretch but is there a case for a “what you are” category too? A conscience-motivated behaviour pattern. The two examples I’m thinking of:

Dan Ariely’s 10 Commandments study
People became more honest after reading the 10 Commandments, regardless of faith.

Robert Cialdini’s Mirror on Halloween study
Children were more honest when they were within sight of their own reflection.

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:57:24 +0000

Thanks Felix, sorry for the delay in replying. You are right, of course - surveillance could certainly be broken down further into at least those two categories. The balance of power you mention is interesting - a CCTV camera doesn't allow equiveillance in the same way that natural surveillance by someone you can see does. But what about where there are real people doing the surveillance, but we can't see them - the curtain-twitchers, the secret surveillance vans, Bentham's Panopticon, and so on? That isn't necessarily technological, but it is one-sided (though there is this). Not all surveillance is about actually influencing people's behaviour, of course. Some is, but if a camera (or observer) is hidden, and we're completely unaware that they're there, then it seems as though it's really an evidence-gathering method rather than a deterrent to certain behaviour at all. Whereas a visible camera (and in the extreme, a fake visible camera really is about influencing behaviour. Your point that "if people don’t like what I’m doing, and they tell me, we can sort out a solution" describes a situation where people actually interact with each other to influence each other's behaviour (or attitudes) in one way or another, but as you say, you don't get empathy through the camera lens and the first you hear about it may be after the event, when it's too late to influence your behaviour.

By: felix

felix — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 18:53:18 +0000

Dan, what do you think is the difference between the two types of surveillance you describe? Natural vs. technological.

IMHO, the balance of power is important. When we look out for each other, no one person has too much control over another. With CCTV, the owner of the camera has total control.

There’s a feeling with CCTV, for me, that negates your personal ability to deal with a situation. If people don’t like what I’m doing, and they tell me, we can sort out a solution. CCTV assumes that’s not an option; that evidence and proceedure are needed to stop unwanted behavior. The best solution for anti-social behaviour is empathy, and you don’t get that through a camera lens.