=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3328/paper1
|storemode=property
|title=Destructive Feedback: a user created strategy for collecting user feedback in shared systems
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3328/paper1.pdf
|volume=Vol-3328
|authors=Wo Meijer
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/etis/Meijer22
}}
==Destructive Feedback: a user created strategy for collecting user feedback in shared systems==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3328/paper1.pdf
Destructive Feedback: a user created strategy for
collecting user feedback in shared systems
Wo Meijer1
1
TU Delft, Industrial Design Engineering Landbergstraat 15, 2628 CE Delft, The Netherlands
Abstract
This paper documents a method for collecting user feedback on broken or malfunctioning devices dubbed
Destructive Feedback; where the user deliberately “breaks” the device by removing an affordance. This
makes it easier to detect visually and with sensors, as well as discourages others from using a broken
device. This method is inspired by turning the bike seats around in the Paris bike share system (Vélib’).
A designer lead application of Destructive Feedback would allow for easier detection of faults by users,
repair personnel, and the system itself. First, it is unclear how widely used and understood the behavior
is in the Vélib’ system; pointing to the need for an ethnographic study. If the benefits in this real example
are significant, the main challenge of such a system is to create “destruction” in an easily repairable way,
inform users of the meaning of the destruction, and prevent miss-use. Finally,it will be necessary to test
example devices with users to gauge feedback, work with engineers to create sturdy “breakable” systems,
and compile these findings into a set of design tools and methods that allow designers to implement
destructive feedback in other PSS’.
Keywords
Shape changing interfaces, Internet of things,
1. Introduction and Inspiration
This paper presents the concept of Destructive Feedback, a method of user feedback where users
are encouraged to “break” devices to report and share the fault. This method is inspired by (if
not just a documentation of) behavior users of the bike sharing system of Paris, Vélib’; users
sometimes turn the seat of these bikes around in order to indicate to other users and repair
personnel that the bike is faulty (see the two bicycles in Figure 1 for an example where the fault
is also clearly visible).
This (seemingly) user-created mechanism for sharing feedback (see Section 4) adds value
for users of the bike share system (who are less likely to use a broken bike), repair personnel
(bikes with issues easier to spot), and the system (benefitting from better user experience and
more accurate maintenance). This paper tackles four main questions about this method: What
is Destructive Feedback in a design context? What are the benefits and drawbacks of such a
system? Do we know if users actually use this? What design guidelines and methods are
necessary to develop such tools?
Proceedings of ETIS 2022, November 7–10, 2022, Toulouse, France
Envelope-Open W.I.M.T.Meijer@tudelft.nl (W. Meijer)
© 2022 Copyright for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR
Workshop
Proceedings
http://ceur-ws.org
ISSN 1613-0073
CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org)
Figure 1: Two Vélib’ bicycles, both have their seat turned to indicate they are broken. The chain of the
closest one is drooping, which is an additional indicator for those familiar with bicycles.
2. Designerly Definition
As shown in Figure 1, the seats of the bike have been turned around as an indication that they
are not working. On one level, this acts as a visual indicator that there is something “different”
with the bikes. On a more pedantic, designer level, the feedback removes the affordance of
being able to sit on the bike normally. This acts as a (un)conscious disincentive to use the bike,
reducing the likelihood that the user uses a bike that is damaged. This “removal of affordance”
process is referred to as “Destructive Feedback” in order to provide a term that is less dependent
on jargon and more provocative.
3. Benefits and Drawbacks
The main benefit of this system has been highlighted above: an obvious indicator of fault in
the service. For Vélib’ specifically, integrating the feedback mechanism into the bike itself,
there could be an increase in the number and accuracy of user reports, which can be difficult to
collect and are understudied [1, 2, 3]. Furthermore, the act of destruction that is inherent in this
process can be a method of catharsis for the user and bring a moment of joy [4] increasing the
user experience in the face of faults.
Of particular interest would be a benefit not implemented by Vélib’, the fact that these large,
deliberate actions of “breaking” a component would most likely lend themselves well to being
detected by IoT sensors. To detect the fault shown in Figure 1 without detecting destructive
feedback; each bike would need to be equipped with tire pressure sensors, a chain sensor, as
well as a host of other sensors to detect small faults such as break pad wear (measured in tenths
of millimeters), all of which would require connectivity and power. Thus, destructive feedback
would combine the amazing ability of humans to detect errors with the benefits of (simple) IoT
sensors.
In addition to the clear and less clear benefits, there are drawbacks to such a system. Mainly,
that designing a system to be “breakable” could increase the chance that such a system breaks,
because the design must deliberately include a broken state. Additionally, vandalism and theft
is a major issue with micro-mobility (and other types of products) [5], giving vandals additional
ways to mess with a system by design could lead to increased vandalism. Finally, there is the
fact that users will need to be aware of the possibility to give this kind of destructive feedback,
and interpret what it means. Given the number of websites (see Appendix A) explaining the
backward seat of a Vélib’, the removal of an affordance might not be enough to give users a
clear idea of what is happening.
Given these drawback, the question becomes: when do the benefits outweigh the drawbacks
and how can a system be designed to reduce these drawbacks?
4. Validation: Vélib’
It would be simple to begin to validate these proposed benefits and drawbacks using the real
world example of the Vélib’ bike-share system1 in Paris. Unfortunately most methods would
require a level of physical access and French language knowledge not available to the author at
this time. Both observation and user interviews would be useful in answering a smattering of
questions from both the user and service perspectives, such as:
1. Do users actually apply Destructive Feedback?
2. Do users actually understand Destructive Feedback?
3. How do users actually discover Destructive Feedback?
4. Do repair personnel understand Destructive Feedback?
5. How reliable for the repair personnel is Destructive Feedback?
4.1. User Perspective
There are 1400 Vélib’ stations in Paris 2 offering ample opportunities for researchers to observe
the flow of users (given ethics and privacy approval) and their behavior, specifically monitoring
their use of and reaction to backward seats. Additionally, researchers could conduct brief
interviews with users in order to gauge their understanding of and history with the system and
the backward bike seats.
1
Vélib’ itself does not mention the backwards bike seats in any official capacity, however a similar bike service
in Montréal officially suggests turning the seat around, but also has a report button on the bikes: https://www.yout
ube.com/watch?v=16DAn0EdoLw
2
Reported on https://www.velib-metropole.fr/en/service, accessed November 1st, 2022
Researchers could “force” user interaction with Destructive Feedback. For example by turning
all of the seats in on station backwards and noting how this changes the behavior and experience
of users. This will definitely require careful consideration of the moral and ethical aspects of
potentially preventing users from accessing bikes.
4.2. Service Perspective
As noted previously, a benefit of the Destructive Feedback method is that user-detected faults are
easier for the service to detect. However, there is no clear documentation of how Vélib’ personnel
respond to users’ Destructive Feedback. As a starting point, interviews with repair personnel
could inquire into their experience and understanding of the backward seats. Observing
personnel, either at a distance or as a ride-a-long, would help further illustrate their behavior
in response to the Destructive Feedback. Finally, measuring the effectiveness of Destructive
Feedback could involve noting the position of the seat of bikes brought in for repair, which
would help calculate the number of total faults reported through Destructive Feedback, and the
reliability of the method (the ratio of reported repairs to actual repairs).
5. Design Guidelines and how to Create Them
In order to apply the concept of destructive feedback to other products and contexts it is essential
to create a set of design guidelines that not only help designers select a mechanism to integrate
destructive feedback, but do so while being aware of the context, user behavior, potential
downsides, and the impact it has on the service as a whole (elements such as repair personnel).
One approach for generating such design guidelines would be as follows:
First, research the true benefits of destructive feedback, starting with the approach mentioned
in Section 4. In addition, there are examples of similar behavior (both of users and products) in
contexts outside of shared bikes. Simple examples include turning empty champagne bottles
upside down or removing the affordance of being able to look at a broken screen by tapping
a piece of paper in front of it. Additional examples should be sought out, researched, and
mapped out to provide more information on when and how users develop and apply Destructive
Feedback.
Following the initial research, the preliminary findings can be used to drive a series of small
research pilots where designers target specific examples of destructive feedback designs in
order to understand the decision factors that come up during such a design process, and then
combine that with information from user behavior from these initial tests.
These findings can then be combined to form elements of a design tool (activities, segmenta-
tion, path, and examples [6]) that will enable designers to analyze the possible uses of destructive
feedback in their situation and give them the tools necessary to think through those ideas. By
approaching the development of the design tool using an iterative prototyping process many
of the elements of the tool (such as activities and examples) can be generated and validated
simultaneously.
As can be surmised by this paper, there is currently a lot to explore in this direction: from the
impact of it on user experience, to finding it in other contexts, to figuring out how to incorporate
it to design processes.
A. Websites
The following is a (incomplete) list of websites that mention the meaning of the backwards bike
seat. All were accessed November 1st, 2022.
• https://secretsofparis.com/practical/using-the-velib-bike-service-in-paris/
• https://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowTopic-g187147-i14-k7549333-Velib_Bike_Rental_War
ning-Paris_Ile_de_France.html
• https://thegoodlifefrance.com/how-to-take-a-velib-bike-ride-in-paris/
• https://sarahlynnpablo.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/what-you-need-to-know-about-velib-
paris-public-bike-share/
References
[1] C. Gao, W. Zheng, Y. Deng, D. Lo, J. Zeng, M. R. Lyu, I. King, Emerging App Issue
Identification from User Feedback: Experience on WeChat, in: 2019 IEEE/ACM 41st
International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice (ICSE-
SEIP), IEEE, Montreal, QC, Canada, 2019, pp. 279–288. URL: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/do
cument/8804432/. doi:10.1109/ICSE-SEIP.2019.00040 .
[2] D. J. Brooker, Issues in user feedback on health services for elderly people, British Journal
of Nursing 6 (1997) 159–162. URL: https://www.magonlinelibrary.com/doi/abs/10.12968/bj
on.1997.6.3.159. doi:10.12968/bjon.1997.6.3.159 , publisher: Mark Allen Group.
[3] L. Lou, L. Li, S.-B. Yang, J. Koh, Promoting User Participation of Shared Mobility in the
Sharing Economy: Evidence from Chinese Bike Sharing Services, Sustainability 13 (2021)
1533. URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/3/1533. doi:1 0 . 3 3 9 0 / s u 1 3 0 3 1 5 33 ,
number: 3 Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute.
[4] W. H. Clark, Sex Differences and Motivation in the Urge to Destroy, The Journal
of Social Psychology 36 (1952) 167–177. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1
952.9921855. doi:1 0 . 1 0 8 0 / 0 0 2 2 4 5 4 5 . 1 9 5 2 . 9 9 2 1 8 5 5 , publisher: Routledge _eprint:
https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1952.9921855.
[5] A. Agnihotri, S. Bhattacharya, Bird’s Micro-Mobility Solution: The Changing Landscape of
Urban Transportation, London, 2021. URL: https://sk.sagepub.com/cases/bird-micro-mobili
ty-solution-landscape-urban-transportation. doi:10.4135/9781529764215 .
[6] W. Meijer, XXR: Further Extending Extended Reality with Sensory Perception (2019). URL:
https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid%3Aa42d4a2d-9589-4e0e-95aa-a3362336
1b3c.