Textual and technical illiteracy is often cited as a barrier to the adoption of services and by default the benchmark for success is often set at ‘understanding and completing the task by oneself’. However if there are ‘literate’ people nearby to what extent does it matter that the user is illiterate?

‘Mediated use’ is simply recognising that part or all of a task or process is mediated through others. The mediator may be other family members, friends, peers, kiosk operators, agents or other dedicated service providers – with a range of benefits and costs associated with involving others. Mediated use exists in any country or context but is more prevalent in countries with high levels of technological or textual illiteracy. Common examples include telephone kiosk operators; mobile phone content providers; topping up pre-paid phones; and providing the authentification to sign up new customers.

From the user’s perspective mediation is driven by a desire to: complete a task without having the necessary skills to do it oneself; convenience – asking someone else takes less time and effort than the consequences of going it alone; reduce error rates; generate opportunities for social interaction; reciprocate; show off – the lack of transparency is a useful way to project one’s status or aspiration; and that asking re-enforces or challenges the power relationship between mediator and mediated. Mediation can also be considered as a first step to independent use by either party – the simplest way to learn.

For the user the primary costs of completing a task through a mediator are lack of privacy, inconvenience and the cost of social investment.

Given that mediated use is likely to reveal the minutiae of the task at hand and thereby compromise privacy – to what extent does communication or a transaction need to be kept private? Research into mobile phone and kiosk practices in Kathmandu and Delhi taught us that whilst users value privacy and often expect it as a default a large percentage of day-to-day communication is not only fine being overheard with others, often it is pro-actively shared. There are of course significant personal, cultural and contextual differences in attitudes to privacy, and the sometimes unpredictable direction of say, a phone call can mean that the user rapidly wishes to switch from being overheard to complete privacy. Communication topics lean towards privacy include: medical and health issues; relationships; work; and money.

In situations where the user is required to use a mediator but still wishes to maintain a degree of privacy one strategy is to travel further afield and use an agent or kiosk operator from another neighbourhood or in a busy environment where their conversation will be just one of many. The larger the pool of potential mediators the less of an issue this will be, a simple example of positive network effects. Using an ‘alternative’ agent or kiosk operator is somewhat of a trade-off since the task requires pre-meditation, takes longer to complete and that using someone new can trigger a re-evaluation of risk.

Turning to friends, peers or indeed agents for help in completing a transaction requires different levels of social investment, for example spending time being sympathetic to the mediators long list of current ailments or in the context of an agent the implied promise of being a more loyal customer.

Whilst asking for help may be thought of as burdening others, from a task-flow design perspective it is very similar to having an assistant complete part of the task. Hence the illiterate and the reasonably wealthy share something in common – the ability to affectively delegate those parts of the task process that they don’t want to, or can’t complete themselves.

For any given service – to what extent should we assume that the user will complete the entire task process?

Next week: What the agents get out of the arrangment.

-Jan Chipchase