The following map shows the flow of carbon emissions in traded goods, and which countries are major exporters and importers of carbon emissions.

As GOOD reports: “When someone in the States buys shoes that were made in China, the carbon emitted in their production gets added to China's tally, despite the fact that the shoes get exported.”

The visualization and study shows that looking only at domestic emissions is pretty misleading and doesn’t capture the true emissions caused by particular country’s total activity. It also makes a case for changing the way we think about allocating responsibility for products to consumers. Read the full story.

via the Independent

Google, famous for flying the corporate "do no evil" flag, is accused of -- and this is putting it mildly -- a lackluster commitment to practicing what they preach. Threat Level asserts that their regular claims to championing freedom of information (as evinced on Google's public policy blog among other places) are inconsistent with the "real facts".

Read More...

1. Lying Through Visualization?

An interesting bit of infoviz ethics here. AT&T is suing Verizon over a commercial which features a map comparing the two companies' 3G wireless coverage.

AT&T alleges that although the data may be accurate, the presentation is misleading. According to the complaint, although the map compares only 3G coverage (which Verizon has more of), the blank spacing in the map suggests that AT&T has no coverage of any kind in those areas.

I'm fairly certain legal action is the wrong play here. It only seems to validate Verizon's claims that AT&T is inferior. The map may be correct, but the message is not. AT&T has data coverage in those "blank" areas, just not 3G. AT&T should turn around and make an ad with a map comparing where iPhones work. Plenty of blank space for Verizon there.

Read More...

The Fall of Man, Lukas Cranach the Elder

Namely, it indicates that 67% of consumers believe it's important to buy ethically responsible products, and that 51% of them are willing to pay more for those products. What's more, 28% of consumers avoid buying products from companies whose political and social positions they disagree with, while 17% have told others to stop buying products from those companies.

While none of comes as a surprise, exactly, there's another interesting statistic that might: according to the survey, 23% of consumers say they have "no way of knowing" if a product does what it claims. To wit, there what appears to be a statistically verifiable "green trust gap." Now, why might that be the case?

Raphael Bemporad, co-founder of BBMG, says the findings mean that marketers need to better communicate with consumers and be more transparent. DLB's official response? Well, duh.

Sometimes in the history of this blog, design ethics has bled into business ethics. It's easy for this to happen, because design and business are so closely tied. Almost all design is undertaken for commercial purposes, and this means that business requirements are inherent in almost any design project. Because of the unfortunate character of business, though, these requirements are often unethical. Therefore, it has seemed natural for us in the past to suggest that ethical design meant either taking on only clients with highly ethical businesses (call this the Tibor Kalman approach) or else advocating for more ethical business practices with the clients we do have.

The big problem is that neither of these approaches is feasible for most working designers. The first case is untenable because (as of now) there just aren't enough ethical businesses to go around, and so most designers wouldn't have the option to practice ethically. This would mean that for most of us, the choice would be between an unethical practice or no practice at all.

In the second case, designers overstep their roles in their engagements. Our clients aren't paying us to audit their business practices, and overwhelmingly often, they're not interested in getting that service from us pro bono, either.

Detail from Rembrandt's The Abduction of Proserpina (c. 1630).

Read More...

You've no doubt heard about this by now, as it's been one of the most popular stories in the media for the past week.

If you haven't, here are the bullet points, excerpted from the New York Times article.

Two Domino's employees made a video in the restaurant's kitchen. In the video, one provides narration while the other performs gross violations of health-code standards. Within days:

1. The video had been viewed more than a million times on YouTube.
2. References to it were in five of the 12 results on the first page of Google search for "Domino's."
3. Discussions about it had contaminated Twitter.
4. The perception of Domino's quality among consumers went from positive to negative, according to online surveys at YouGov.

Photographs of ex-Domino's employees Kristy Hammonds and Michael Setzer from the Conover, N.C., Police Department

In just a few days, Domino's reputation was damaged. "We got blindsided by two idiots with a video camera and an awful idea," said Domino's spokesman Tim McIntyre. "Even people who've been with us as loyal customers for 10, 15, 20 years, people are second-guessing their relationship with Domino's, and that's not fair."

This is an interesting practical situation. Unlike in the case of Virgin Airlines, this incident does not seem to be as clearly attributable to the brand itself. Indeed, the analysis of the Domino's incident (and the recent similar one at Amazon, although that one may be slightly less apropos to my point here) has almost exclusively addressed damage control strategies for incidents of this type, treating them as rather more like a hurricane than as a symptom of endemic organizational problems.

I wonder, though, if there isn't something even more interesting to be found by treating them as the latter. If we can justly do this, and we do, then perhaps we can comport ourselves to the disease, rather than the symptom. I'm thinking about this now, and I'll try to write about it next week.

There's a great deal of talk these days about a desire for transparency --transparency in our software, our banking system, our government, etc.-- but transparency itself may not be enough.

Case in point: your standard legal contract is transparent. The complete documentation is made available to all parties involved. The dilemma is that the average person can't understand it as it is full of complex legal language and procedure. Granted, contracts are constructed this way to hold up to scrutiny, but I think it begs the question: if only lawyers can understand the document, can we really call that transparent?

Aviary, a collection of browser-based design tools, summarizes its Terms of Service in plain English. In doing so, I'll bet more users will actually read them (I did).

It's a lesson, I think, that transparency alone doesn't always fulfill its intended function. While policies are important, we should be careful not to forget the role of user experience.

Transparency must be designed.