<p>A few days ago, vaccines were opened to people aged 18 and above. Amidst the raging second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic, this was indeed a piece of good news but the euphoria was short-lived. As soon as registration and appointment for slots opened, all hopes came crashing down upon realising the near-impossibility of finding a slot. This was infinitely worse for people who do not have any technological access and know-how. Without the support of high-tech laptops, smartphones, high-speed internet and coding skills to surpass the systematic complexities, their rate of surviving the pandemic also plummeted, just like their hopes.</p>.<p>According to <em><a href="https://science.thewire.in/health/indian-government-to-1-4-billion-people-want-a-vaccine-learn-how-to-code/" target="_blank">The Wire</a></em>, “only 662,619, or 1.3 per cent of the 51 million Indian citizens in the 18-44 age group registered on the portal and took their first jab”. At the outset, the booking system is designed in such a way that it discriminates against the majority of the population wanting to access and exercise their basic human rights. This was possible only because we have fallen head-on, yet again, into the clutches of ostentatious tech solutions and frameworks without doing our due diligence. We should have asked crucial questions such as: Who should benefit from this intervention? For whom are we designing the booking system? And, who will be more likely to use the system? The irony is stark where vaccines are provided free to individuals who cannot afford them, but they are expected to book slots through this complex system that requires the latest laptops, mobiles and high-speed internet.</p>.<p>Last year in September 2020, our PM in his keynote address at the US-India Strategic Partnership forum gloated about a new and fresh “human-centric” approach to development and tackling the first wave of the pandemic. But the question that arises here is, to which “human” was he referring?</p>.<p>We will look at three emerging patterns following the rollout of the infamous booking system narrative using a human-centred design lens.</p>.<p>1. <strong>People are viewed merely as data</strong></p>.<p>People are largely viewed as data in the process of designing systems and solutions. Involved engineers and designers, behind the scenes and screens, analyse copious data and figures and crunch numbers to determine use-cases of smartphones in the country to ensure an efficient vaccination drive within the scope of a well-designed app. The basic flaw in this quantitative method does not rest on the shoulders of the technology alone, but on the overall approaches to solving problems with only data-driven inferences.</p>.<p>Our culture of hinging on data-driven solutions has ignored the actual lived experiences of the people in the process. The absence of internet literacy, lack of awareness in navigating the interfaces with captcha codes, OTPs and log-ins every few minutes have not just taken a toll on their seamless experience of using the app or website, but on their cognitive experience of using technology or the lack thereof. In a sense, the said people constitute the technologically discriminated “left out” majority.</p>.<p><a href="https://www.livemint.com/Politics/kZ7j1NQf5614UvO6WURXfO/88-of-households-in-India-have-a-mobile-phone.html" target="_blank">A report </a>confirmed that 88 per cent of households in India today have access to mobile phones. It, however, doesn’t specify the categories, whether they have access to basic phones, feature phones or smartphones to begin with and then, whether they have access to internet data plans, or the strength of the network to receive those elusive OTPs. Depending on this kind of opaque figures, the ease of booking slots at the height of the pandemic should have been guaranteed, ignoring the supply of vaccines for the moment.</p>.<p>2. <strong>Overuse and dependency on apps for solving system-related problems in India</strong></p>.<p>In the recent decade, there are about two million software developers in our country and, out of that, 50,000 focus on developing apps for mobile, as reported by India App Developers. Using apps to solve all of our problems has evolved to be policy makers’ crutch or the solution of first-resort. This level of obsession, dependency and over-use of screen-based solutions has left no scope for thinking about alternative ways of tackling the problem in front of us.</p>.<p>Sure, apps have an (important) place in all of our lives. However, we should be cognizant of their limitations, the probability of failure and the cost of that failure. If we draw a comparison between a frequently used app-based platform like BigBasket and the government’s app-based vaccination drive, the impact of failure or delay in the latter on the lives of many will be catastrophic than the former. A recent report says even with the accessibility of smartphones, many people in the slum areas of Delhi have maxed out on booking the slot for four people at a time with one phone number.</p>.<p>3. <strong>The efficiency-versus-empathy debate while designing the system</strong></p>.<p>The objective of achieving efficiency in the complex process of vaccination has compromised the much-needed empathy towards the “left-out” majority. Designing with empathy is a key tenet of ‘Human-Centered Design’. To empathise would mean redirecting the focus of the vaccination drive to provide accessibility and equity beyond the technological barriers. Empathy isn’t just an emotion, it is taking action for and with different communities such as the marginalised communities, gig economy workers, slum residents, homeless, rural migrants and rural population by understanding the complexity that they might face, technological or otherwise, to get vaccinated. An empathetic vaccination process would have aligned, exacerbated and guaranteed the objectives of vaccination in the entire country with efficiency and efficacy.</p>.<p>The irony of this solution, which prioritises efficiency over the inequitable distribution of vaccines, is in the least efficient of the lot. The privileged who can afford to pay for the vaccines or even stay and work from home have been protected than people whose lives and livelihoods depend on it.</p>.<p>Adopting human-centred design approaches in preventive healthcare measures such as the vaccination drive would have made a difference in people’s lives. It would have drawn critical insights that could trigger a more robust response when designing the booking processes focusing on accessibility, convenience and efficiency towards the majority. Most importantly, the process begins with asking a potent question, which humans are at the heart of the solution?</p>.<p><em>(The writer is a human-centred designer.)</em></p>.<p><em><strong>Disclaimer:</strong> The views expressed above are the author’s own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH</em></p>
<p>A few days ago, vaccines were opened to people aged 18 and above. Amidst the raging second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic, this was indeed a piece of good news but the euphoria was short-lived. As soon as registration and appointment for slots opened, all hopes came crashing down upon realising the near-impossibility of finding a slot. This was infinitely worse for people who do not have any technological access and know-how. Without the support of high-tech laptops, smartphones, high-speed internet and coding skills to surpass the systematic complexities, their rate of surviving the pandemic also plummeted, just like their hopes.</p>.<p>According to <em><a href="https://science.thewire.in/health/indian-government-to-1-4-billion-people-want-a-vaccine-learn-how-to-code/" target="_blank">The Wire</a></em>, “only 662,619, or 1.3 per cent of the 51 million Indian citizens in the 18-44 age group registered on the portal and took their first jab”. At the outset, the booking system is designed in such a way that it discriminates against the majority of the population wanting to access and exercise their basic human rights. This was possible only because we have fallen head-on, yet again, into the clutches of ostentatious tech solutions and frameworks without doing our due diligence. We should have asked crucial questions such as: Who should benefit from this intervention? For whom are we designing the booking system? And, who will be more likely to use the system? The irony is stark where vaccines are provided free to individuals who cannot afford them, but they are expected to book slots through this complex system that requires the latest laptops, mobiles and high-speed internet.</p>.<p>Last year in September 2020, our PM in his keynote address at the US-India Strategic Partnership forum gloated about a new and fresh “human-centric” approach to development and tackling the first wave of the pandemic. But the question that arises here is, to which “human” was he referring?</p>.<p>We will look at three emerging patterns following the rollout of the infamous booking system narrative using a human-centred design lens.</p>.<p>1. <strong>People are viewed merely as data</strong></p>.<p>People are largely viewed as data in the process of designing systems and solutions. Involved engineers and designers, behind the scenes and screens, analyse copious data and figures and crunch numbers to determine use-cases of smartphones in the country to ensure an efficient vaccination drive within the scope of a well-designed app. The basic flaw in this quantitative method does not rest on the shoulders of the technology alone, but on the overall approaches to solving problems with only data-driven inferences.</p>.<p>Our culture of hinging on data-driven solutions has ignored the actual lived experiences of the people in the process. The absence of internet literacy, lack of awareness in navigating the interfaces with captcha codes, OTPs and log-ins every few minutes have not just taken a toll on their seamless experience of using the app or website, but on their cognitive experience of using technology or the lack thereof. In a sense, the said people constitute the technologically discriminated “left out” majority.</p>.<p><a href="https://www.livemint.com/Politics/kZ7j1NQf5614UvO6WURXfO/88-of-households-in-India-have-a-mobile-phone.html" target="_blank">A report </a>confirmed that 88 per cent of households in India today have access to mobile phones. It, however, doesn’t specify the categories, whether they have access to basic phones, feature phones or smartphones to begin with and then, whether they have access to internet data plans, or the strength of the network to receive those elusive OTPs. Depending on this kind of opaque figures, the ease of booking slots at the height of the pandemic should have been guaranteed, ignoring the supply of vaccines for the moment.</p>.<p>2. <strong>Overuse and dependency on apps for solving system-related problems in India</strong></p>.<p>In the recent decade, there are about two million software developers in our country and, out of that, 50,000 focus on developing apps for mobile, as reported by India App Developers. Using apps to solve all of our problems has evolved to be policy makers’ crutch or the solution of first-resort. This level of obsession, dependency and over-use of screen-based solutions has left no scope for thinking about alternative ways of tackling the problem in front of us.</p>.<p>Sure, apps have an (important) place in all of our lives. However, we should be cognizant of their limitations, the probability of failure and the cost of that failure. If we draw a comparison between a frequently used app-based platform like BigBasket and the government’s app-based vaccination drive, the impact of failure or delay in the latter on the lives of many will be catastrophic than the former. A recent report says even with the accessibility of smartphones, many people in the slum areas of Delhi have maxed out on booking the slot for four people at a time with one phone number.</p>.<p>3. <strong>The efficiency-versus-empathy debate while designing the system</strong></p>.<p>The objective of achieving efficiency in the complex process of vaccination has compromised the much-needed empathy towards the “left-out” majority. Designing with empathy is a key tenet of ‘Human-Centered Design’. To empathise would mean redirecting the focus of the vaccination drive to provide accessibility and equity beyond the technological barriers. Empathy isn’t just an emotion, it is taking action for and with different communities such as the marginalised communities, gig economy workers, slum residents, homeless, rural migrants and rural population by understanding the complexity that they might face, technological or otherwise, to get vaccinated. An empathetic vaccination process would have aligned, exacerbated and guaranteed the objectives of vaccination in the entire country with efficiency and efficacy.</p>.<p>The irony of this solution, which prioritises efficiency over the inequitable distribution of vaccines, is in the least efficient of the lot. The privileged who can afford to pay for the vaccines or even stay and work from home have been protected than people whose lives and livelihoods depend on it.</p>.<p>Adopting human-centred design approaches in preventive healthcare measures such as the vaccination drive would have made a difference in people’s lives. It would have drawn critical insights that could trigger a more robust response when designing the booking processes focusing on accessibility, convenience and efficiency towards the majority. Most importantly, the process begins with asking a potent question, which humans are at the heart of the solution?</p>.<p><em>(The writer is a human-centred designer.)</em></p>.<p><em><strong>Disclaimer:</strong> The views expressed above are the author’s own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH</em></p>