This paper [1] introduces a new perspective to Human-Centered Computing where Women are the primary stakeholders. Almeida et al. establish the necessity of designing for women, who account for a significant part of the world's population but are in a disadvantageous position regarding the current scenario in health and education. The paper cites many past pieces of research and ideologies that argue against adopting an approach emphatic to women because of the perception regarding possible ghettoisation of the sex. The authors have strong opinions against this and favour better experiences for women in the two domains. The paper is well researched on stereotypes and the historical events that brought about a change in paradigms. They have restricted their study to cis-women to explain their reference frame and introduced the three properties of humanity, activism, and inclusion. Through three case studies, the three properties are highlighted, making it the author's contribution to the field of HCI.
A significant drawback of this research is that there is no established definition for the three properties of WCD. The authors have explained their usage with examples, but this restricts the possible future work since other researchers cannot develop on these to expand their scope. Every person may have different understandings of the cases.
This paper's research method is case studies of FeedFinder, a crowdsourced public breastfeeding location pointer app; Labella, an app designed for women to check their pelvic muscles and vaginal health; and in design work in Lebanon with Syrian refugee women. The selection criteria for these has not been explained. It should be noted that the choices made tried to cater to different roles of women - as customers, participants - active and passive. Despite the wide range catered, there still were many gaps in information revealed in the paper that commented about the women and their participation. Moreover, all three cases were limited to healthcare. The authors should have extended the research and considered education cases - the need for which was emphasised in the first half of the paper. It has been mentioned that the essence adopted for this research and any other in this domain is and should be that of empathy.
The authors have suggested pluralism to be adopted in women-centred design, but this does not reflect in their research. All three cases cater to cis women, and trans women have been completely disregarded. Based on the same, questions can be raised regarding inconsistency of claims since feminism is mentioned and appreciated, but equality not reflected in the research itself.
Analysing the research methods further, one notices much information missing in the description. The authors have not talked about the demographics of users of the products and the study's informants. Other unclear areas include - who conducted the discussion with the informants, the research methodology adopted in the three cases, on what basis were the informants selected, etc. There may be a great bias in the results that cannot be commented on due to the lack of information.
The three cases also lacked discourse over the concerns of the informants with the products/ situations. For instance, a possible concern that a woman may have with Labella is that the user is holding their phone as a mirror in front of their privates and the person may be vary of doing so. How does the app or the researchers of the study handle privacy concerns? Further, there could be social concerns with FeedFinder. Public breastfeeding is looked down upon in many cultures across the world and is often not talked about either. Did the app get a positive response? Lastly, in the case of the refugee participants, they were from countries that are not developed or modern with their mentality and women are often not granted privileges in patriarchal societal structures. Was it easy to get women to talk about their health? Did they wish to be discrete, or were they open during these discussions? While empowering a portion of society, be it major or minor, one needs to be sensitive to their matters and handle them in a structured manner.
The research area chosen by Almeida et al. is fascinating and, as established, essential to promote feminism in all domains. However, their work is not novel. They have studied existing products and tried to fit in their frame, rather than the other way around, as novel studies should. Moreover, results may not be replicable outside these three cases, situated in western, developed countries. To make the work stronger, alternate qualitative research methods like interviews - semi structured and contextual could be adopted to understand the the scenario better and make inferences.
References