Transcript Powerpoint version - Human Computer Interaction

CS 321 Human-Computer Interaction
 Today
• Finish Ethics
 Next Week
• Research Topics in HCI
©2001 Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville All rights reserved.
Ethics is …
 The study of moral standards and how they affect
conduct
 moral standards are …
• A system of principles governing the appropriate
conduct of an individual
 Ethics asks us to live “mindfully”
©2001 Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville All rights reserved.
Case of the Killer Robot
Article: A Conversation with Dr. Harry Yoder
 Dr. Yoder: “Randy Samuels and Cindy Yardley were both
just out of school. … One has to wonder whether they
received any instruction on ethics”
 What have you learned about ethics in the CS
Department?
 What responsibility does the CS Department have in
teaching ethics?
©2001 Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville All rights reserved.
Case of the Killer Robot
Article: A Conversation with Dr. Harry Yoder
 Dr. Yoder: “Related to this is the question of whether
either of them had much prior experience with group
work.”
 What have you learned about working in a group in the
CS Department?
 What should the CS Department do to prepare you for
working in a group?
©2001 Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville All rights reserved.
Case of the Killer Robot
Article: A Conversation with Dr. Harry Yoder
 Dr. Yoder: “There are no standard practices for the
development and testing of software.”
 Should the CS Profession develop a Standard of Practice?
©2001 Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville All rights reserved.
Case of the Killer Robot
Article: A Conversation with Dr. Harry Yoder
 Dr. Yoder: “Samuels did not have requisite domain
knowledge.”
 What is “domain knowledge”?
 Should having domain knowledge be a condition of
employment?
©2001 Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville All rights reserved.
Case of the Killer Robot
Article: Ethics and Computing: The ACM Code of Ethics
 What is the ACM?
 What is the ACM Code of Ethics?
 General Moral Imperatives
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Contribute to society and human well-being
Avoid harm to others
Be honest and trustworthy
Be fain and take action not to discriminate
Honor property rights including copywrites and patents
Give proper credit for intellectual property
Respect the privacy of others
Honor confidentiality
©2001 Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville All rights reserved.
Case of the Killer Robot
Article: Ethics and Computing: The ACM Code of Ethics
 More Specific Professional Responsibilities
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Strive to achieve the highest quality, effectiveness, and dignity in both
the process and products of professional work
Acquire and maintain professional competence
Know and respect existing laws pertaining to professional work
Accept and provide appropriate professional review
Give comprehensive and thorough evaluations for computer systems and
their impacts, including analysis of possible risks
Honor contracts agreements, and assigned responsibilities
Improve public understanding of computing and its consequences
Access computing and communication resources only when authorized to
do so
©2001 Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville All rights reserved.
Case of the Killer Robot
Article: Ethics and Computing: The ACM Code of Ethics
 Organizational Leadership Imperatives
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Articulate social responsibilities of members of an organizational unit and
encourage full acceptance of those responsibilities
Manage personnel and resources to design and build information systems
that enhance the quality of working life
Acknowledge and support proper and authorized uses on an organization;s
computing and communications resources
Ensure that users and those who will be affected by a system have their
needs clearly articulated during the assessment and design of requirements,
Later the system must be validated to meet requirements.
Articulate and support policies that protect the dignity of users and others
affected by a computing system
Create opportunities for members of the organization to learn the principles
and limitations of computer systems
©2001 Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville All rights reserved.
What ethical issues might you face?
 Are you the kind of team member you would want on your
own team?
• Accept criticism (egoless programming)
• Be aware of the difference between constructive and
destructive criticism
• Meet your team obligations
 Be a contributing member
 Meet deadlines
 Provide help to others
• Communicate
• Be honest
©2001 Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville All rights reserved.
What ethical issues might you face?
 Are you the kind of team leader that you would want to
lead your team?
• How do you motivate your team to be productive?
• Do you recognize your own lack of expertise?
• What is your leadership style?
 Democratic
- Laissez-Faire
 Authoritarian
 Autocratic
©2001 Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville All rights reserved.
What ethical issues might you face?
 What ethical responsibilities do you have to the public?
• Thorough design
• Robust implementation
• Honesty in advertising
• Thorough risk analysis
• Thorough testing
• Proper training
©2001 Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville All rights reserved.
Therac – 25
 Linear accelerator to deliver x-rays and electron beams for the
treatment of cancer
 Released in 1985
 Third generation machine (Therac-6, Therac-20)
©2001 Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville All rights reserved.
Therac-25: What happened?
 Normal radiation treatments: 6,000 rads over a 3
week period, under certain conditions Therac-25
was delivering 60,000 rads during one session.
Accidents
3 June 1985 – patient in Marietta GA received overdose
26 July 1985 – patient in Hamilton ONT severely burned.
Died November 1985
December 1985 – patient in Yakima WA receives overdose
21 March 1986 – Tyler TX accident, patient died later
11 March 1986 – second T accident, patient died 1 month later
17 January 1987 – Second Yakima WA accident
©2001 Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville All rights reserved.
Therac-25: What went wrong?
 Paradigm Shift
• Therac-25 replaced expensive hardware safety
interlocks with software controls
• Real-time software
 Design
• Race condition caused focusing element to be
incorrectly set
• No indication of actual hardware settings
• Error messages appeared the same regardless of how
important
• Error messages were difficult to understand
• All errors messages could be manually overridden
©2001 Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville All rights reserved.
Therac-25: What went wrong?
 Lack of experience and overconfidence in software
controls
 No user involvement in design or testing
 Insufficient testing
 Poor error messages
 Lack of visibility of hardware settings
 Lack of constraints
 Affordance of overrides
 Poor documentation
©2001 Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville All rights reserved.