Developing ethical mobile software is one thing, but people also need to be willing and able to use it. What do users need to make the switch to an alternative? We spoke to Isadora Dullaert, a researcher at Waag Futurelab working on the European research project Mobifree.
Through Mobifree, Waag has explored how mobile software can be developed around public values and the needs of end users. As part of this research, around 120 people tested various open and privacy-friendly mobile technologies. What worked for them, what challenges did they encounter, and what can developers learn from their experiences?
As part of Mobifree, you asked different groups of end users to test alternative mobile software over an extended period. What did you hope to learn from this research?
We mainly wanted to understand which values people consider important in mobile software, what challenges they encounter when using it, and whether they see those values reflected in the technology. To explore this, we asked four groups to test different mobile technologies over eight weeks.
The users' perspective is important because you cannot decide what people need on their behalf. If you want to develop technology that genuinely fits into their everyday lives or work, you need to involve them in the process.
You worked with a wide range of participants, including young adults, civil servants, humanitarian professionals and developers. Looking at their experiences, what do they need most to be willing and able to use ethical mobile software?
We found that different groups prioritise different values, but also that the same value can mean different things to different people. Humanitarian professionals, for example, strongly associated privacy and security with their work involving vulnerable people and sensitive data. For young adults, privacy was more about having control over their own information. Civil servants placed particular emphasis on making technology easy to understand.
This need for clarity also emerged across the other groups. Participants appreciated being able to see more clearly what information apps collect, but struggled when privacy settings were too technical or failed to explain the consequences of a particular choice. A privacy-friendly option means little if users do not understand what it actually does.
Something else that surprised me was that some participants used the pilot as an opportunity to reflect on which apps they really needed. The research also encouraged people to become more aware of their own technology use.
'The same value can mean different things to different users.'
Privacy was important to many participants. But design, familiarity and clarity also influenced their sense of trust. What does this tell us about translating values such as privacy and trust into software?
Privacy is an abstract value. That is why you need to work with users to understand what makes them feel their privacy is protected and what they need to be able to make informed choices about it.
When it came to trust, we found that people also judge technology by how it looks. If an app looks unfinished or 'sketchy', they are less likely to download it. Some participants also felt that downloading an app outside a familiar app store was unsafe, even though this can actually offer greater freedom. What developers understand by trust does not necessarily match how users experience it.
Taking all these findings together, what could developers of ethical software do differently?
Be clear about who your product is intended for and actively involve those people at different stages of the development process. Do not assume what privacy, security or trust means to them. Explore these values together with users and translate what you learn into design decisions.
This does not always require a two-month pilot. Even a co-creation session can provide valuable input. The most important thing is not to make assumptions about what people need.
Your research explored not only whether people valued the software, but also what helped or prevented them from actually switching. Which barriers can developers address themselves, and which are beyond their control?
Developers can invest in usability, onboarding and support for people switching to new technology. At the moment, making that switch often takes considerable time, and users are left to figure out much of the process themselves.
But some barriers are beyond developers' control. Civil servants, for example, are often given a work phone with software already selected by their organisation. Different parts of the mobile ecosystem also depend on one another. An alternative app store, for instance, may still rely on Google Play to offer certain widely used apps. Developers cannot remove every barrier on their own.
’Developers can create alternatives, but we also need policies that make room for them.’
What do these more structural barriers mean for policymakers who want to promote digital autonomy and a fairer mobile ecosystem?
Simply promoting open-source software will not automatically change existing power structures. Regulation can create space for alternatives, but investment is also needed to develop those alternatives further.
Public values in technology are also receiving increasing attention in policymaking. That is a positive development, but these values remain abstract unless we explore what they mean to different people. Users therefore need to be involved in policymaking too.
How have the findings from the end-user research been incorporated into Mobifree, and what can developers and policymakers take from them?
Throughout the research, we worked with developers to identify what they wanted to test and connected this to users' values and needs. We then discussed the findings with the developers, allowing them to decide which insights to incorporate into their technologies.
The research process also led to the Guide for co-creation of ethical software. It supports developers who want to involve users in the development process but are unsure how to approach it. The guide offers a step-by-step approach and a range of practical methods.
Mobifree also developed the position paper Building a public mobile stack. It presents a framework connecting users' values, technological design choices and European legislation, alongside concrete recommendations for developers and policymakers.
If developers and policymakers were to take away just one insight from this research, what would you want it to be?
There is growing momentum behind open-source software and ethical technology. Across all user groups, we saw enthusiasm for the ideas behind these alternatives. But if we want this technology to reach beyond a relatively tech-savvy audience, we need to genuinely involve people in its development.
It is not enough to decide which values technology should uphold. We need to work with users to understand what those values mean to them and what they need to actually use the technology.
