Showing 25–36 of 52 articles
What works for the majority can drive someone out — when deciding requires listening: Leadership and collective decisions
A solution convenient for almost everyone can impose an exclusionary cost on one person; responsible decisions seek out that impact, hear it and correct it without abandoning the duty to govern.
Read article
Conflict is not resolved by adding another screen when creating also means recognising
Conflicts over authorship and culture are not fixed by another interface: they require dialogue, attribution, repair, clear rules, and real alternatives.
Read article
The exception reveals the quality of a system when creating also means recognising
Unforeseen cases show whether a creative practice can attribute, repair, and sustain participation when the process stops being convenient.
Read article
What works for most people can exclude someone — before a crisis appears: Cybersecurity for everyday life
A security measure protects only when people can understand, use, and recover from it without losing autonomy.
Read article
Participation changes the question and improves the answer — when organisation affects life: Work, care and organisation
Participation by people who work and care turns diffuse problems into fairer, more inclusive, sustainable decisions.
Read article
The first question must come before the tool — on and off the field: Sport and community
In youth sport, understanding need, relationship and safety before adding an app protects inclusion and educational purpose.
Read article
What works for most people can exclude someone — when someone needs support: Digital health and wellbeing
Digital support is useful only when it can be used, understood, and left without losing access to a human response.
Read article
What works for most people can exclude someone, before sharing with the whole community: Citizenship and networks
A community network is more useful when it notices whom it leaves out, offers alternatives, and shares care without making an exception an individual burden.
Read article
After launch, the important work begins — before an automatic response: Everyday artificial intelligence
Launching an AI tool does not close a project: it starts error observation, support for affected people, and verifiable improvement of every automatic response.
Read article
Safety begins when reporting an error is possible — before an automatic response: Everyday artificial intelligence
The safety of an automatic response depends on errors being reportable, correctable, and explainable without punishment. Everyday AI needs clear channels, human oversight, and repair.
Read article
What works for most people can exclude someone — before an automatic response: Everyday artificial intelligence
An automatic response designed for the majority case can leave out people who write differently, need more time, or do not fit its assumptions. Everyday AI requires alternatives and human review.
Read article
Conflict is not resolved by adding another screen — before an automatic answer: Everyday artificial intelligence
When an automatic answer conflicts with a real need, adding steps and screens usually hides the problem. What is needed is explanation, review, and a human route with power to decide.
Read article