Author(s)
Dirk van der Linden, specialized in Informatics, interspecies information systems and Requirements Engineering
Research Location/Institution
University of Northumbria, Newcastle-upon-Tyne
Country
United Kingdom
Date
March 29, 2023
Writing Style
Academic and critical style
Publication
Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Animal-Computer Interaction
Context
The author argues that "animal-centered design" is often used as a vague synonym for "animal user-centered design," focusing merely on usability rather than values
It often prioritizes human interests (such as making exploitation more efficient) and cannot handle complex ethical issues created by new technologies
True animal-centered design should move beyond "welfarism" (preventing suffering) toward affirming animal dignity
To respect an animal's dignity, designers must avoid:
Humiliation: Treating the animal as an inanimate object or making fun of it.
Excessive Instrumentalization: Using the animal solely as a tool or "mechanizing" it.
Interference: Drastically altering the animal’s natural appearance or abilities.
Loss of Control: Creating situations where the animal is entirely dependent on a "technological middle man" for natural behaviors.
Van der Linden suggests that designers ask four critical questions before deploying technology:
How will this tech alter the animal’s natural behavior?
How will it change the human-animal relationship?
Is the animal (or the human) becoming overly reliant on this technology?
Possible Biases
The argument for dignity is heavily influenced by Swiss law and Western Interaction Design principles.
The author admits that concepts like humiliation are still being conceptualized from a human point of view.
Terminology
Polysemy: A term used to describe when a single word (like "animal-centered") has multiple, often conflicting, meanings for different people.
Welfarist Position: A dominant approach in ACI focused primarily on the prevention of unnecessary suffering and providing for basic biological needs.
Animal Dignity: Proposed as a "sliding scale" that goes beyond welfare to protect animals from humiliation, excessive instrumentalization, and unjustified interventions in their appearance or abilities.
Anthrozoological: Relating to the study of interactions between humans and other animals.
Emerging Questions
How can designers objectively define and measure "humiliation" or "loss of control" for a non-human species?
If a design is truly "animal-centered," must it be entirely free of human interference, as some researchers have suggested?