zlacker

I love the calm technology principles. A serious problem, though, is that the interests of the technology provider do not necessarily align with the interests of the technology user. Here is an example. (This is speculative on my part. Anyone who is more familiar with the history here, please chime in.) In the earliest days of telephone, it was in the interest of the phone company that callees answer incoming calls. No answer, no revenue. So, the phones generated jarring, noisy, almost violent clanging noises. We all became Pavlov's dogs for the phone company.

I'm afraid that there will always be an underwhelming minority of technology users who make conscious choices to purchase and encourage calm technology.

One admittedly tepid hope is that society-scale evolution will eventually help. Communities that embrace calm technology will be more fit and ultimately successful than those that acquiesce to jarring, rude, and disruptive technologies that foster a passive, frantic, reactive, unreflective, and anxious consciousness.

>>gregfj+(OP)
> acquiesce to jarring, rude, and disruptive technologies that foster a passive, frantic, reactive, unreflective, and anxious consciousness.

I totally agree with this and love the calm technology principle as well. I'd like to draw attention to the "Time Well Spent" project started by Google's "product philosopher," as I think it's very similar and equally as important. http://timewellspent.io/