Death of a User: The Overlooked Use-Case
By: Jed Brubaker
For all the time we spend detailing use cases for ever imaginable "happy path", when was the last time we stopped to create a use case that accounts for the "death" of a user? Are we good/humble enough developers to handle the potential that our users might want to, well... leave?
"User death" was a topic that I kept running into at CSCW this year. Not in any papers or presentations, instead the topic was relegated to quiet conversations where people dared challenge the impenetrable user/technology dyad. During one of the first nights at CSCW, I spent a good deal of time speaking with Mike Massimi, a PhD candidate at the University of Toronto. He was kind enough to share some recent theoretical work he submitted to SIGCHI about what he calls "thanatosensitive design." Quoting one his professors, “It's an odd feeling seeing a recent e-mail in your inbox from someone who is no longer here to receive the reply.” Massimi suggests that we need to reconsider user-centered design to account for our inevitable deaths.
Later that week, while talking to Janet Vertesi, we shared our mutual fascination with what we might call "digital identity death." She shared her interest the way that blogs change into memorials once their authors die, while I talked about the growing number of social networking profiles that are renamed to "In Loving Memory". Each of these binds users and friends into a new social network of sorts. Users come and converse around a shared interest: their deceased loved one.
Today, however, I am thinking about something much more fundamental: Why can't I delete my account? Or perhaps, what does it mean when I do? Since Van Gelder's 1991 account of online identity fraud and Dibbell's descent into the MOOs and MUDs, we have had to deal with the blurring of what we traditionally thought of (as Donath says) "one body, one identity". When online, what counts as a "body" or "identity" emerges out of the coconstruction, negotiation, and even contestation of users and technologies. While users may prove their existence with each Cartesian account (i.e., "I login, therefor I am"), the terms of their existence is often preregulated by the technology. Moreover, these jealous applications may go to extremes to prevent you from leaving. Technology does a great job of enabling our own sense of immortality.
To be clear, most of these online "identities" are rather facile. The username and password seems the most common and simple way of reconstituting the body online. MySpace doesn't care about your government issued ID, it is your username and password that proxies your body and allows access. It is not surprising, then, that the mass exodus from MySpace earlier this year during Simon Owens' "International Delete Your MySpace Account Day" equated to a form of cult-like suicide.
From the developer's perspective, it is hard to understand a user's desire to leave our software behind. A quick survey of some of the applications around my association reveals that in many cases, this isn't even an option. While drinking my morning joe, I casually accosted colleagues, forcing them to face their mortality, and asked: "Why can't you delete your user account?"
The most common response was a blank stare, followed by a "Why would you want to?" The answers varied, but were all rather weak: data integrity issues, research reasons, and my favorite "it's not really a business priority." It is certainly not an area that developers spend a great deal of effort on. Owens' blog post encouraging people to leave MySpace resulted in a microflurry of users trying to figure out how to do it in the first place. One of our architects admitted that he sometimes wonders what will happen to his Facebook account when he dies. "I guess my wife will clear it out?"
Clearly, the relationships we have with our online identities are not clear. What responsibility t\do we have to the identity artifacts we create, and what responsibilities do software developers have to us as users? My biggest take home is that no one seems to want to talk about this, let alone create clear exit strategies from the user/technology relationship. Perhaps preparing for the death of a user is similar to preparing a living will. Maybe we are procrastinating a task to a future date that may not even exist in the first place.











Deleting an online identity is no easy task -- and not necessary
I touched on this subject in a blog post last year in reference to a Times (UK) piece on "Facebook suicide." Here's my take on the subject. The reason people don't delete their online accounts is because the costs are too high and the incentives are too low. danah boyd (2006) mentions this in reference to defriending practices on SNSs: even though you may no longer be friends with a person, it is far easier to keep them as a friend and (in theory) there is little reason to do so. In fact, with features such as Facebook's "People You May Know," that "friend" you just deleted from your list may know s/he was removed almost immediately, which can lead to other issues. Even after numerous privacy scares on these sites and warnings from concerned parents and news outlets, the benefits clearly outweigh the threats for users. And consider this: numerous studies have found Facebook penetration rates higher than 90% on college campuses (see Ellison et al., 2007 or Golder et al., 2007 for examples). With usage rates so high, are those who do not adopt the technology being left out of valuable conversations?
Maybe it's because I'm a bit older, but I have been slowly culling my networks online over the last two years to those people with whom I have a current (or at the very least semi-current) relationship with. However, during my master's thesis research, I was giving a lecture to a group of undergrads one day and during a very lively discussion, the idea of defriending came up. Several students in the lecture hall made comments about friending patterns, namely that they have accepted friendship requests on Facebook not only from people they barely know, but from people they have never met! One student said she didn't want to reject the friendship request because "it would be rude." Being rude by denying access to her online identity to a complete stranger? Now that is quite disturbing. If users cannot even say no to a friend request, I doubt we could ever offer them a valid reason (in their minds at least) for why they should delete their account.
That said, I do not see any reason for users to "kill off" their online identities. I think people should practice safe use of these sites and protect their online identities more than they currently do. However, I believe we are moving down a path where virtual identities will be a requirement, and SNSs, if used correctly, will continue to bring people together, encourage conversation, spark ideas, and move society forward. Then again, I am a self-proclaimed techno-positivist.
This is more than deletion
So, I had brunch with Mike over the weekend (happy end of the internship, btw) and we agreed that this is a larger issue than just deleting an identity.
You point out how users don't want to "kill off" their identities, but they do want to manage them. Particularly if digital identities are increasingly a requirement, the need to manage these identities will increase. This idea lends itself to Mike idea about the actual death of the user (should hard drives format themselves?, etc), but also to my disengagement approach. If we think of the user/technology dyad as an interpersonal relationship, then developers should be programing intelligent agents that politely allow people to stop the conversation, or at least change topic.
www.whatknows.com