Design shapes our bodies, attention, relationships, choices, and possibilities. This section asks how digital creators can support human agency, accessibility, meaningful connection, and well-being rather than simply maximizing engagement and profit.
The course is guided by Permaculture Design Ethics: Earth Care, People Care, and Fair Share. Rooted in the millennia-old patterns of thriving ecosystems, these ethics provide key values and questions for our designs. They return in every project critique and portfolio reflection.
Permaculture Ethics: Earth Care, People Care, Fair ShareDesign is how we build our world—from its intimate effects on our bodies to its consequences for communities and ecosystems. How and why we design shapes our tools; in turn, those tools shape who we are and who we can become.
The technological revolution has unfolded so quickly that many consequences of our designs were never adequately tested on people, communities, or ecosystems. Today, growing calls for more holistic and healthy design principles challenge creators to align their work with the world they want to help create.
We begin with technology’s effects on people, particularly the human body. New media theorist Marshall McLuhan describes technologies as extensions of the body: when a technology augments one human capacity, it may weaken or “amputate” another. Recognizing these trade-offs is essential to good design and humane technology.
People Care | Fair Share | Earth Care |
|---|---|---|
| Supports autonomy, attention, health, accessibility, dignity, and meaning. | Asks who participates, who benefits, whose labor and data are used, and who bears risk. | Recognizes the material, energy, water, and infrastructure behind every digital experience. |
| Does this support human agency and thriving? | Who benefits, participates, or bears costs? | What material and ecological systems does it depend on, and how could harms be reduced or regeneration supported? |
Map one digital artifact from user need to device, network, server, and disposal. Try to list all energy and materials and labor and transportation needed to make the task happen. Make one small change that reduces unnecessary resource use, or unfair labor.
Add useful alt text to one portfolio image and check one text/background pair for WCAG contrast. Fix either if needed.
Find one dark pattern or attention-hijacking default. Redesign it as a humane default that still lets the service accomplish a legitimate goal.
Run a one-day notification or interruption experiment. Record what improved, what became harder, and redesign one interaction using purposeful rather than punitive friction.
For Project 1 or a portfolio post, provide a readable transcript and use descriptive link text rather than “click here.” or “learn more”
Choose one human need—belonging, competence, rest, creativity, safety, or autonomy—and sketch a feature that supports it without maximizing time-on-platform.
Digital systems do more than connect people. They distribute visibility, opportunity, risk, data, labor, and power. Every design decision helps determine who is represented, who is excluded, who benefits, and who bears the costs.
This section shifts from individual experience to relationships, communities, culture, and democratic life. Fair Shareasks: Who benefits? Who decides? What responsibilities and resources should be shared or returned to the community?
We will continue to evaluate every design through the connected lenses of People Care, Fair Share, and Earth Care, with Fair Share as our primary focus.
In Part I, People Care Design, Tristan Harris’s “Call to Minimize Distraction & Respect Users’ Attention” helped us examine how the attention economy affects physical and mental health. Part II expands the scale of inquiry: How does digital technology shape families, relationships, communities, cultures, and political systems?
You are not only a user of these systems. As a designer, you can challenge harmful defaults and create alternatives that reflect your values. The central question is: How can we design digital technologies that share power more fairly, strengthen collective agency, and support thriving human and more-than-human communities?
Create a stakeholder-and-care map for your Project 3 subject or community: who speaks, who is represented, who consents, and who might be affected by the story?
Caption and give alt text for any media in your your last class post-including featured image. Then search for all of your images/media in Media library and do the same.
Start with the AI Bias Activity
Then, draft a representation-and-bias audit of one interface, platform, AI feature. Identify an assumed user, an excluded or marginalized perspective, one consequence, and one redesign decision.
How can creators establish where media came from without confusing provenance with truth? How can readers spot fake news and find ways to build trust?
Verify one image, quotation, clip, or claim in Project 3 using source/context checks and, when available, provenance metadata. Record what the evidence can and cannot establish.
Check any links in your previous posts–use a more descriptive name for the link.
What data does a digital experience really need, and who gains power when designers collect more?
Draw a simple data-flow map for one app or your Project 4 concept: what is collected, where it goes, who can access it, what is truly necessary, and what could be deleted or kept local?
How should creators decide when AI expands human agency and when it concentrates power or substitutes automated judgment?
Write a short AI decision memo where AI adds value, where human judgment must remain primary, one risk, one verification step, and one mitigation.
Try using only a keyboard to navigate class webpage. Note any focus, heading, link problem you encounter.
Digital media is not weightless. It depends on physical infrastructure: devices, minerals, factories, networks, data centers, electricity, water, land, and labor. These systems have already caused deep ecological damage. This section asks how digital creators can move beyond reducing harm to help restore the living systems on which all technology—and all life—depends.
All economies operate within ecologies: both organize and distribute natural and human resources. Yet many current systems are designed to maximize short-term profit while depleting the soil, water, biodiversity, climate stability, and communities that make long-term prosperity possible.
Our design goal is to move from:
Regenerative design does more than make technology “less harmful.” It seeks to repair damaged systems, rebuild natural capital, and create the conditions for people and ecosystems to thrive together.
You are not limited to inheriting today’s extractive systems. As a regenerative designer, you can question their assumptions, imagine compelling alternatives, and help build technologies that return more than they take. Throughout this work, we will connect Earth Care to People Care and Fair Share, balancing critical analysis with creative vision.
The central question is: How can we design digital systems that serve life, restore ecological capacity, and help create a thriving future?
Related viewings
What should technological systems optimize if growth, engagement, and profit are not adequate measures of success?
Map the business model of one digital service. What does it optimize? Identify one alternative success metric grounded in People Care, Fair Share, or Earth Care.
What changes when knowledge, tools, and infrastructure are designed for shared stewardship rather than extraction?
Take one extractive or proprietary service and sketch a commons, cooperative, interoperable, or community-governed alternative. Specify what would be shared and how stewardship would work.
For Project 5, provide captions or a transcript and check that any on-screen text remains readable long enough and at sufficient contrast.
What would digital products look like if designers treated devices as material lifecycles rather than disposable endpoints?
Choose one device you own and map extraction/materials → manufacture → use → repair → reuse → disposal. Identify one design or behavior change that could extend its useful life.
What physical systems make digital experiences possible, and how should creators weigh their benefits against energy, water, land, and community costs?
Map one digital service across user device → network → cloud/data center. Note likely energy, water, land, or community dependencies, then propose one demand-reduction or design intervention.
Run a brief accessibility-and-performance review of one portfolio page. Fix one accessibility barrier and one unnecessarily heavy asset.
How can creators move beyond doing less harm toward technologies that strengthen communities and living systems?
Take one project from this semester and redesign it one step further using all three lenses: increase human agency, distribute benefits and governance more fairly, and reduce extraction or support regeneration.
What kind of digital creator are you becoming, and how does your work support human thriving, fair participation, and ecological health?
This week is for synthesis, revision, and reflection. Choose evidence from your projects to address all three course lenses:
Include a short AI-use reflection across the portfolio: where AI was useful, where you chose not to use it, what you verified, and where human judgment remained essential.
Review the existing Portfolio Tips and submit according to the course schedule.
AI is treated as a recurring design condition rather than a single topic. For each major project, students briefly disclose whether AI was used, what it contributed, what they verified, and why that use supported rather than replaced core design judgment.
Get in touch with Prof Joline Blais or TA Cecilia Andrade via