The Basic Argument
Claim: Models are too simplistic when it comes to behavior change
To Whom: Interaction designers
- What do they believe: Models have their place (first and second wave), Holistic design is important.
- What do you want to change: Breaking down a problem into sub parts and trying to solve the sub parts independently. NOTE: I am not saying you have to consider everything, I am saying you should at least try to look at how the parts may influence each other, or how things left out may interact with the parts in the model.
- Technical vocab: Model, Holistic, Slow change (It’s new).
A simplistic model leads to incorrect assumptions.
- It is almost always assumed that lack of motivation, and the lack of awareness is the issue.
- It is assumed that people are lazy and just need the right push at the right time.
- Knowledge of their behavior will lead to improvement.
- Change does not have to be so hard.
Tackling an individual part of a model independently may result in an ill-defined solution
- More motivation through social media, peer pressure etc can in fact be considerably harmful.
- Awareness can lead to overwhelming.
Issues/areas to explore:
More papers on Models and where they are applicable and when they are not. I stumbled into the claims towards the end. I was more focused on trying to show that body data was a bad idea! But now, my approach is to ultimately show that the way we are deploying body data driven solutions are overtly simple.
I need to find other papers in which body data has been used to solve health related problems. This will help with identifying other types of models out there.
There may be a super claim here that body data driven solutions force designers into using simplistic models as the data they can show a user has to be simplistic. But I need to research more to be able to claim this. Any ideas on how I could proceed?