Advertisement

TechTrends

, Volume 46, Issue 6, pp 4–10 | Cite as

Round girls in square computers:

Feminist perspectives on the aesthetics of computer hardware
  • Alison A. Carr-Chellman
  • Rose M. Marra
  • Shari L. Roberts
Contents

Conclusion

What is the first step beyond this dreaming activity? Understanding where future research in this area could move is an excellent extension of this work. Is the distancing experienced by girls’ interactions with computer software oozing beyond the borders of the screen, beyond what is inside the computer? Might it be that the distancing is also a function of the external manifestation of the computer itself the way it looks on the outside? We don’t know how important the physical structure of the computer is. This is an area worthy of more rigorous research. Our work focuses on the actual, unalterable hardware facets of computers from the late 1990’s the outside 6 and suggests alternative constructions that might make computers more approachable for and appealing to girls. But we don’t know if indeed such computers would be more appealing, nor do we know what the interest or impact of more essentialized recent computers such as the Barbie and Hot Wheels computers are. Rigorous qualitative research into the adoption tendencies and impact on gender relations of the introduction of such essentialized products needs to be accomplished.

The original design of the computer was based not on marketing needs or perceptions, nor on progressive concepts of equity, but rather on functionality for those who created the hardware itself. As a result, it is likely to be quite appealing to the designers, but may be less so to those who were outside this creative process. The importance of resting the design decisions with users has been the subject of several important texts on developing computer systems including Norman’s Design of Everyday Things (1988) and also Schuler & Namioka’s Participatory Design: Principles and Practices (1993).

Some considerations both for function and for appearance have been offered from the perspectives of six women representing various disciplines including art, engineering, cultural studies, media studies, curriculum studies, and instructional technology. We hope that the ideas we offer here will cause readers to take a moment to consider what a computer might look like and how it might work if they had designed it to serve both their functional and aesthetic needs. We believe that this area is worthy of more investigation as, while computers have become more aesthetically varied, the larger issue of equitable aesthetics still has not been considered widely in the research literature. We hope perhaps to have opened the door to further considerations of computer hardware and gender-specific aesthetics.

Keywords

Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Carpal Tunnel Computer Hardware TechTrends Volume Everyday Thing 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Banathy, B. (1994). Building a design culture.Cybernetics and systems, 1, 423–428.Google Scholar
  2. Bishop, P. (1981). Comprehensive computer studies. London: Edward Arnold Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Butler, D. (2000). Gender, girls and computer technology: What’s the status now? TheClearing House(May /April), 225–229.Google Scholar
  4. Carr, A.A., Brady, J. Roberts, S., Marra, R., Hammet, R. & Jones, L. (1995). Round girls in square computers: Feminist perspectives on the aesthetics of computer hardware. Presented at the Annual Conference of the Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, Monteagle, TN.Google Scholar
  5. Claymoon, D. (1999, Issue Date). Mattel to market Barbie and Hot Wheels personal computers. San Jose Mercury News.Google Scholar
  6. Collis, B. (1988). Computers, curriculum and whole-class instruction. Belmont, CA: Wasworth.Google Scholar
  7. Damarin, S. (1990). Feminist unthinking and educational technology. Presented at the Association of Educational Communications and Technology conference, Anaheim, CA, Februrary.Google Scholar
  8. Demetrulias, D. (1985). Gender differences and computer use.Education Horizons, 63(3), 133–135.Google Scholar
  9. Douglas, A. (1989). The feminization of American culture. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  10. Ellsworth, E. & Whatley, M. (1990). The ideology of images in educational media, hidden curriculums in the classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  11. Forty, A. (1986). Objects of Desire. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  12. Freiberger, P. & Swaine, M. (1984). Fire in the valley: The making of the personal computer. Berkeley: Osborne/McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  13. Friedman, A. L. & Cornford, D. (1989). Computer systems development: History, organization and implementation. Chichester: John Wiley & SonsGoogle Scholar
  14. Goldberg, A. (1988). A history of personal workstations. New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  15. Gripshover, N. (1984). The consequences of home computers for gender-role socialization: Defining a theoretical perspective. ERIC Document No. ED 247 025.Google Scholar
  16. Gripshover, N. (1984). Preventing gender-role stereotypes in classroom computer use: The importance of creating the ‘right conditions.’” ERIC Document No. ED 247 908.Google Scholar
  17. Hess, R. D. (1985). Genderdifferenc.es in enrollment in computer camps and classes.Sexroles, 13(3-4), 193–203.Google Scholar
  18. Jakobsd Ûttir, S. (1994). Computer graphics: Preferences by gender in grades 2,4, and 6.journal of educational research, 88(2), 91–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jenlink, P. 6k Carr, A.A. (1996). Conversation as a medium for change in education. Educational technology, January, 31–38.Google Scholar
  20. Kier, P. J., Bach, J.M., Rempel, D. (1999). Effects of computer mouse design and task on carpal tunnel pressure.Ergonomics, 42(10), 1350–1360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Linn, M. (1985). Gender equity in computer learning environments.Computers and the social sciences, I (1).Google Scholar
  22. Lockard, J., Abrams, P., & Many, W. (1994). Microcomputers for twentyfirst century educators. New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.Google Scholar
  23. Lucking, R. (1984). Gender differences in attitudes toward computers.Voice of youth advocates, 7(2), 80–82.Google Scholar
  24. Moreau, R. (1986). The computercomes of age. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Miura, I. (1986). Understanding gender differences in middle school computer interest and use. ERIC Document No. ED 273 248.Google Scholar
  26. Munger, G. (1989). Gender and attitudes toward computers and calculators: Their relationship to mate performance,Journal of educational computing research, 5 (2), 167–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nelson, J.E., Treaster, D.E., Marras, WS. (2000). Finger motion, wrist motion and tendon travel as a function or keyboard angles.Clinical Biomechanics, 15(7), 489–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Norman, D. (1988). The design of everyday things. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  29. Pinkerton, J. (1995). New marketing tactics woo women to computers.Dealerscope (May), 47–48.Google Scholar
  30. Pinkerton, J. (1995). PCs? boosting their feminine appeal.Advertising age (June 12), 1,6.Google Scholar
  31. Reinen, I. (1994). Gender and computer use: Another area of inequity? ERIC Document No. ED 376 174.Google Scholar
  32. Riviere, J. (1929). Womanliness as masquerade (1929). In Burgin, W., Donald, J. & Kaplan, C. (Eds.), Formations and Fantasy. New York:Routledge, 35–44.Google Scholar
  33. Rosenthal, N. (1988). Assessing gender bias in computer software.Computers in the schools, 5(1-2), 153–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schuler, D. & Namioka, A. (1993). Participatory design: Principles and practices. New Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  35. Sidener, J. (1999, Issue Date). Barbies Era in computers has arrived. The Arizona Republic, pp. El.Google Scholar
  36. Shade, D. D. (1994). Computers and young children: software types, social contexts, gender, age and emotional responses.Journal of computing in childhood education, 5(2), 177–209.Google Scholar
  37. Spigel, L. (1992). Installing the television set: Popular discourses on television and domestic spacce, 1948–1955. In Private screenings Spigel, L & Mann, D. (Eds). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2–38.Google Scholar
  38. Stets, D. (1995). With styling and features, computers aim to come home.Philadelphia inquirer, September 17, Dl, DIG.Google Scholar
  39. Swadener, M. & Hannatin, M. (1987). Gender similarities and differences in sixth graders’ attitudes toward computers: An exploratory study.Educational technology, 27(1), 37–42.Google Scholar
  40. Turkle, S. (1984). The second selfComputers and the human spirit. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  41. Volk, T. (1995). Metapatterns. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Williams, M.R. (1985). A history of computing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alison A. Carr-Chellman
    • 2
  • Rose M. Marra
    • 1
  • Shari L. Roberts
    • 3
  1. 1.Learning Technologies University of MissouriColumbia
  2. 2.Instructional SystemsEducation Perm State UniversityUniversity Park
  3. 3.Lawrence, KansasUSA

Personalised recommendations