Defining ‘Care’ and ‘Comfort’ in HCI
Beyond the Transactional User
In modern Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), we often talk about “users.” But a “user” is a transactional construct—someone to be optimized, converted, or kept “engaged” via eye-catching copy and high-contrast CTAs.
I am proposing a shift toward Comfort Mode: an approach to the web built for the human behind the screen, stripped of transactional motives.
Defining ‘Care’ as an Engineering Requirement
We do not use “Care” as a soft metaphor. We use it in a strict, ethical sense: as design that is attentive to lived context, individual dignity, and relational needs, rather than mere compliance with abstract norms.
- Compliance asks: “Does this button meet the minimum contrast ratio?”
- Care asks: “Does the cognitive load of this interface respect the human’s mental energy in this specific context?”
This isn’t about being “nice”; it is about recognizing that a human interface is a relationship, not just a tool.
The Evolution of the Framework
My thinking on “Comfort Mode” has evolved through rigorous feedback and self-correction.
1. The Foundation: Accessibility as Care
In my paper, Making Accessibility Accessible, Part I: A Care Framework for Developer-Centered Tooling Infrastructure, I established that “Care” must also extend to the developer. If the tools we give developers are frustrating and burdensome, the “Care” for the end-user will inevitably fail. Accessibility must be built into the infrastructure, not bolted on as a chore.
2. The Course Correction: Rejecting Harmful Automation
Earlier iterations of this work—detailed in Beyond Compliance: A User-Autonomy Framework for Inclusive and Customizable Web Accessibility—explored overlay-based adaptations.
Overlays are automated scripts that attempt to ‘fix’ accessibility issues on the fly. Community feedback correctly identified these as harmful, as they often interfere with assistive technologies like screen readers.
While the philosophical foundations were correct (autonomy and personalization), the implementation was flawed. I have since explicitly rejected “unsafe” automation. The current work grounds itself in empirical evidence: care-centered design is not just “better” ethically; it has a measurable positive impact on tool adoption and system stability.
Comfort as a Functional Objective
“Comfort” is the measurable result of a Care-centered system. When we apply psychophysical laws to UI spacing (as seen in my other experiments), we aren’t just making it look “better.” We are reducing the biological friction of digital interaction.
The Goal: A web that feels native to human perception, respects human autonomy, and acknowledges that the person on the other side of the screen has a life, a context, and a dignity that exists outside of their “use” of our software.
Status: Core Philosophy / Lab Manifesto
Related Papers: * DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19130.25285
My deepest gratitude to Mr. Krishna, whose constancy forms the foundation upon which all my work, including this, quietly rests. Salutations to the Goddess who dwells in all beings in the form of intelligence. I bow to her again and again.