As a community, our lack of foresight about the consequences of our decisions can have serious implications on the users we are designing for. Whether it’s a browser or a social networking service, it is clear that users are not always in a position to make informed decisions. As a result, these users often put their trust in technology they don’t understand without an awareness of its consequences. A machine-centered model of development is not only ethically questionable, but raises serious cognitive concerns about the future of human experience. Building on Jaron Lanier’s plea for “crucial arguments” to take place between users and developers, I offer a simpler message to online technologists: With great power should come an even greater responsibility to design for our users first.

The industrial revolution of data we are experiencing, the rise of social networks and the movement towards a real-time web all carry important consequences. Users who unable to cope with this deluge of data rely on us, as designers of these technologies,to look out for their best interests. Instead, our obsession with “big data” and the metrics of the attention economy prioritize machines before our users. What are the consequences of this growing model of development? In establishing the context for our machine-centric thinking and the resulting direction of the Internet, I have focused on user privacy because its abuse has become increasingly evident. However, encouraging users to mediate their online and real-life experiences through machine-centric systems carries important cognitive consequences. What are these cognitive effects wrought by a shift towards the real-time web?

Designers of online technologies may be able to understand and mitigate the effects of the Internet, but what about our users – a.k.a. the rest of the growing Internet-enabled global population? They fundamentally do not understand the medium they are engaging with, a problem that continues to grow as information becomes superabundant and requires machine mediation. As a result, they only become aware of the consequences when they are directly affected – by rogue privacy controls, physical burnout or worse, Internet addiction. They have no choice but to largely trust in us – the architects of the digital world – and the structures we have built for them.
In many ways, that trust has bred laziness and false expectations amongst users. Users from the youngest generations onwards are demonstrating a heavy reliance on search engines, viewing rather than reading results because they lack the critical and analytical skills to assess the information they’ve encountered; Did you find what you were looking for, or simply convince yourself that you did? Why do consumers need to research products any more, when they can rely on user-generated reviews for guidance. As Don Martelli asks, “Do we [users] expect every tid bit of information to magically flow to us in our online life stream?” When users have finally lost all intrinsic motivation and rely solely on external motivators, what will the human experience be like? How will we challenge our views when we’re all connected and consuming the same content? Where will progress and creativity come from if we lose our capacity for deeper thinking and reflection?

As technologists, our machine-centered thinking has blinded us from the value of certain kinds of irrational thinking. We’re building systems that discourage irrational, unpredictable and irresponsible behavior while ignoring the possibilities they open up. This kind of thinking lets an 81-year-old go on an adventure caused by a wrong turn. It allows kids to design glass art that pushes the boundaries of the medium in unexpected ways. Irrational thinking allows us to challenge assumptions, develop active imaginations, and removes our reliance on extrinsic motivators. How can we design technologies that promote these valuable kinds of behavior rather than blindly assuming they are without merit?

Based on the provided overview and analysis of the real-time web and its cognitive effects, I believe any human-centered model for change will need to consider the following:
1. How can user expectations about the Internet be challenged in ways that raise awareness of its negative effects?
2. Can these methods illustrate the inherent value in disrupting the machine-centric priorities of technologists?
If emerging models do not address these concerns, then they are bound to become ‘sustaining’ rather than ‘disruptive’ technologies. Creating disruption – and therefore inspiring change – will require informed users and reformed technologists.
Not For Bots represents my efforts at addressing the aforementioned concerns about the future of the Internet while offering technologists a blueprint for change. It is:
1. An ongoing series of online software that playfully demonstrate how the Internet is
shaping human behavior.
2. A disruptive model of web design that emphasizes the psychological values of the irrational and unpredictable in our increasingly digital lives.
Not For Bots offers a “human-centered” view of technology that seeks to create experiences that machine-centered philosophies are inherently poor at producing, such as self-reflection, deep communication and real relationship-building. It achieves disruption by willingly embracing what is missing on the Internet – designs that stimulate our capacity for irrational, illogical and unpredictable behavior. The ongoing series of software promote this disruptive model while following a three-part methodology that unifies the work.

Part 6 is a series of case studies about the flagship Not For Bots projects that provide an overview, use case, concept, and methodology for each. Their intention is to serve as a detailed breakdown of the impetus, intentions, and execution of every project and how they tie into the larger Not For Bots philosophy. At the time of this posting, there are 3 ongoing projects - Transito.us, Penultim.it, and Interregnu.ms - that have case studies included in this version of the manifesto. They are meant to inspire discourse and experimentation from fellow designers and developers to produce their own work based around a similar methodology.

In the end, Not For Bots is a challenge to you, my fellow technologists concerned about the future of the Internet. The machine-centric behavior of our past and present brethren have given birth to an accelerating real-time web that threatens to have profound consequences on the human experience. While the acceleration of culture is an inevitable side effect of technology, that doesn’t mean we have to embrace the demise of our privacy, productivity, attention spans and thoughtful inquiry. We are in a position to affect change in the control systems that govern these outcomes, and what Not For Bots hopefully demonstrates is that these outcomes can be changed. There is room on the Internet, with the tools we have to work with, to design thoughtful experiences that inform users and encourage reflection about their use. When we stop designing and evaluating experiences around the abstract desires of the machine – speed, logic, and reliability – we open new doors to countless worthwhile experiences waiting to be discovered. When we stop designing for bots, we can start designing for people – in all their unpredictable and irrational glory.