The World Wide Web (WWW) has been a transformative force for 33 years, driving innovation and connecting the world in unprecedented ways. However, despite its rapid evolution and technological advances, the WWW still grapples with significant design challenges. Many digital services and products remain unintuitive and unreliable, leading to issues with accessibility, safety, and inclusion (particularly for older adults and individuals with impairments). Innovators and futurists see this as an opportunity to address fundamental human needs through thoughtful redesigns to future-proof the ubiquitous technology.
We all know that the Internet has become an indispensable part of modern life, with its impact only amplified during the COVID-19 pandemic. Technologies like Zoom and FaceTime became essential tools for maintaining connection, demonstrating how resilient digital systems can be under pressure. However, continuous efforts are required to address security vulnerabilities, standardise protocols, enhance accessibility, and improve performance to create a safer, more reliable, and inclusive web.
A stark reminder of the fragility of our digital systems occurred last month, on 19 July 2024, now known as ‘International Bluescreen Day’. A flawed channel file update caused a logic error in Microsoft updates, triggering global outages. It has been estimated the cost of this outage—to US Fortune 500 companies alone—is more than $5.4 billion, let alone the cost to other businesses and industries around the world. This incident, which did not affect Mac and Linux systems, highlighted widespread security vulnerabilities and the fragility of modern digital infrastructure—and importantly, the need for diversity in system design.
Even with numerous technological advances, many digital systems remain unintuitive, inaccessible, and prone to failure. A recent incident I noticed at a food court in the city exemplified this issue for me. I saw a customer struggling to order food via an interactive screen. The outlet assistant’s response was, ‘sorry, you must use the screen; I cannot help from this side of the counter’. This not only highlights an obviously lacking design (which is all too common with digital interfaces), but also a lacking human response. If the Crowdstrike issue has taught us anything, it is that we must maintain both human and system interactions—for we know systems are not infallible. Such design flaws are pervasive, and the trend toward app-based solutions, such as parking payments via the Cello App (with this sometimes the only option), raises concerns about accessibility for those without smartphones.
The assumption that everyone has a smartphone is a dangerous one. Based on US data, we know that 97 per cent of Americans own a mobile device of some kind, and 90 per cent of those own a smart phone. In Australia, figures are similar, with 81 per cent of the community using a smartphone in 2018 (estimated to be 87 per cent by 2026); 2024 data indicates that of 16-64 year olds who access the Internet, only 3 per cent don’t have a smart phone. But that is still about 750 000 Australians between the ages of 16 and 64—not even taking into account those who fall outside this bracket. How will their interaction with a technology-focused world continue to change?
We know that digital devices are often designed for distraction and the attention economy, and can contribute to numerous psychosocial and mental health issues if not used responsibly. To address these issues, a deeper curiosity is required, a curiosity that focuses on understanding, controls and user experience—without a sole focus on keeping users on their devices. Responsibility on both sides—user and provider—is essential. Internationally renowned curiosity expert, Scott Shigeoka (2023), emphasises the importance of looking for clues and hints to solve complex problems such as this, advocating for a broader ‘opening of the door’ perspective on inclusive design. One recent example is that of US Democratic Representative, Jennifer Wexton, becoming the first lawmaker to ‘use an AI-generated model of her voice’ to speak to the House. Wexton, who lost the ability to use her voice fully due to a progressive condition, supranuclear palsy, said the moment brought her ‘to tears’.
As with any technology, there are pros and cons, and opportunities—including for our students—to consider how to best use design thinking for the benefit of the broader community. Design is a way of thinking that adheres to basic psychological principles, creating a sense of understanding, control, and a positive experience for users. Sometimes, the best design is invisible, seamlessly integrating into users’ lives. When existing designs are flawed, it falls to young technologists to fix prevailing systems and create more inclusive and reliable digital experiences, such as giving someone back her voice.
As we celebrate 33 years of the WWW, it is clear that while significant progress has been made, there is still a long way to go. Addressing the ongoing challenges of security, standardisation, accessibility and performance optimisation is crucial for the future of successful digital design. By fostering a deeper curiosity and a commitment to thoughtful design, we can create a web that truly meets the needs of all users, ensuring a safer, more inclusive, and reliable digital world for the next generation—and hopefully also retain options for human interactions for those who prefer not to interact online.
Mr Brendon Thomas
Director of Technologies
References
Shigeoka, S. (2023). SEEK: How curiosity can transform your life and change the world. Retrieved from https://seekthebook.com/.
Robins-Early. (2024). CrowdStrike global outage to cost US Fortune 500 companies $5.4bn. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/jul/24/crowdstrike-outage-companies-cost
AI voice clone enables lawmaker to speak in US Congress. (2024). Retrieved from https://dig.watch/updates/ai-voice-clone-enables-lawmaker-to-speak-in-us-congress
Law, D. (2023). Australian Mobile Phone Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.redsearch.com.au/resources/australian-mobile-statistics/#:~:text=How%20many%20Australians%20don’t,perspective%2C%20that’s%20barely%20756%2C300%20people.
Smartphone penetration rate as share of the population in Australia in 2017 with an estimate until 2026. (2021). Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/321477/smartphone-user-penetration-in-australia/
