We invite you to provide feedback on the clarity of our draft Code of Conduct for the Human-Centered and Ethical Development of Immersive Technologies.
-
Are there any sections of the Code of Conduct that are unclear or need further explanation?
-
Is the language used in the Code of Conduct clear, concise, and easily understandable for a broad audience, including developers, policymakers, and end-users?
-
Are there any terms or concepts in the Code of Conduct that require additional definitions or clarification?
-
Are any sections overly technical or complex for the intended audience?
Please find the document here.
You may provide your comments directly in the shared document or add your comments here in the Forum.
1 Like
Clarity in this document is crucial as it ensures that all stakeholders can understand and adhere to the guidelines effectively. Please take a moment to review the draft and share your thoughts. Your insights are invaluable, and all comments are of great importance.
The principle of Human-Centered Design assumes that “needs, values, and well-being” are universal concepts. However, well-being can be subjective and culturally dependent. Who gets to decide what enhances well-being, and what happens when user preferences conflict with regulatory interpretations? This point could be clearer
Because these are subjective and culturally dependent, it is probably best that the Code of Conduct (CoC) not be explicit here. The designer and the developer (D&Ds) of XR solutions should be the deciders here because they are essential to deciding for what humans the solution is made for. A good CoC is meant to be a way for D&Ds to follow a robust process to make those decisions, not meant to make decisions for them.