Racist? No. Is Time writing on-the-verge-of misleading headlines? Yes.
More importantly, is this an example of poor design? Yes.
The word racist has become a term many people use lightly in every day conversation. Something is racist when it opposes a minority group or enforces racial stereotypes. It's not commonly used to define a person as a true-to-the-definition racist.
When we read this article light-heartedly, it becomes somewhat humorous, as poking fun at our differences allows us to become more comfortable with them.
When read seriously, which Time suggests that we do, it lures us into thinking that Nikon and the people are Nikon are racist. The Nikon camera itself is not racist. It cannot determine race, gender, or species. The people who programmed the camera are not racist (I'd hope). We can assume that testing the face-detection software wasn't extensive enough. Time itself says this software is "clearly unintentional[ly]" biased towards Caucasian faces.
What we have here is an accident. One that should have been discovered during product testing (especially because Nikon is a Japanese comapny). Oh well. It's a mistake. It didn't hurt anyone. This is a simple reminder to test products (and processes) throughly.
1. What design issues are you interested in? 2. What is your dream collaboration? 3. Compare your fashion style to your GD style. 4. What is your ideal work environment? 5. Response to Ira Glass on good taste. 6. Write a story
Racist? No. Is Time writing on-the-verge-of misleading headlines? Yes.
ReplyDeleteMore importantly, is this an example of poor design? Yes.
The word racist has become a term many people use lightly in every day conversation. Something is racist when it opposes a minority group or enforces racial stereotypes. It's not commonly used to define a person as a true-to-the-definition racist.
When we read this article light-heartedly, it becomes somewhat humorous, as poking fun at our differences allows us to become more comfortable with them.
When read seriously, which Time suggests that we do, it lures us into thinking that Nikon and the people are Nikon are racist. The Nikon camera itself is not racist. It cannot determine race, gender, or species. The people who programmed the camera are not racist (I'd hope). We can assume that testing the face-detection software wasn't extensive enough. Time itself says this software is "clearly unintentional[ly]" biased towards Caucasian faces.
What we have here is an accident. One that should have been discovered during product testing (especially because Nikon is a Japanese comapny). Oh well. It's a mistake. It didn't hurt anyone. This is a simple reminder to test products (and processes) throughly.