ICT for Consumers or Human Beings - Human-Computer Interaction and Innovation in Handheld, Mobile and Wearable Technologies - page 266

REFERENCES of 'human', which is clearly too encompassing,

if not misleading, the current trends in research
could be better expressed using different, more
appropriate wording. For instance, in studies
which focus on the observable behaviour of the
user, the more appropriate term would be 'user'.
Or, if the over-all aim of the research and devel-
opment is purely to create best selling products,
why not use the term 'consumer' instead of 'hu-
man'? Thus the use of the term 'human' could be
reserved for endeavours in which the underlying
motivation arguably could be the construction of
a better world in terms of our understanding of
humanity. In a 'human' approach, the interests,
needs and wants of an individual should never
be separated from the common. Therefore in the
pursuit of better societies, the scope of mobile
HCI should not be restricted to that of computer
scientists and psychologists.
There is a lot of good work being carried out
in the field of mobile HCI. Mobile devices, for
example, really have provided new means of com-
munication for the deaf. Blind people may also
benefit a great deal from a vast array of devices
designed to help them survive in a world which
has primarily been constructed for the sighted
person. Indeed some people have been saved from
dangerous situations, e.g. remote mountainsides,
with the help of mobile phone. The list of these
more positive examples is endless. On the other
hand, it can be argued that mobile ICT has been
one of the foremost catalysts of the dark side of
post-modern way of life: isolating people from
each other and binding them all to the more hectic
rhythm of life (Halttunen et al., 2010).
Someone has designed all the devices which we
now have in active use. So in effect the designers
and practitioners of today are creating all of our
tomorrows. As scientists and human beings we
should be open and explicit making our motives
transparent. This would provide the best starting
point for creating technology which does not
conflict with our human values.

Abascal, J., & Nicolle, C. (2005). Moving towards
inclusive design guidelines for socially and ethical-
ly aware HCI. Interacting with Computers , 17 (5),
484-505. doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2005.03.002

Alexander, L. M., & Currie, C. (2004). Young
people's computer use: implications for health
education. Health Education , 104 (4), 254-261.
doi:10.1108/09654280410546745

Bittman, M., Rice, J. M., & Wajcman, J. (2004).
Appliances and their impact: the ownership of
domestic technology and time spent on household
work. The British Journal of Sociology , 55 (3),
401-423. doi:10.1111/j.1468-4446.2004.00026.x

Card, S. K., Moran, T. P., & Newell, A. (1983).
The psychology of human-computer interaction .
Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hakala, P. T., Rimpelä, A. H., Saarni, L. A., &
Salminen, J. J. (2006). Frequent computer-related
activities increase the risk of neck-shoulder and
low back pain in adolescents. European Journal
of Public Health , 16 (5), 536-541. doi:10.1093/
eurpub/ckl025

Halttunen, V., Maksimainen, J., & Pirhonen, A.
(2010). Less, slower, better. Do information soci-
ety visions have healthy alternatives? In Suomi,
R. & Ilveskoski, I. (eds.) Proceedings of the Third
International Conference on Well-being in the
Information Society (WIS 2010). TUCS General
Publication no. 56, University of Turku, 77-88.

Kennedy, T. L. M., Smith, A., Wells, A. T., &
Wellman, B. (2008)). Networked families. A report
of Pew Internet & American Life Project , Octo-
ber 19. Retrieved (4/11/2008) from http://www.
pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Networked_Family.pdf

Little, L., & Briggs, P. (2008). Ubiquitous Health-
care do we want it? Presented at BCS British
HCI Group Conference, Liverpool, UK 1-5 th
September.