.png)
In today’s digital age, the boundaries between physical, digital, and public vs. private spaces are blurred, and people who might not otherwise meet can now engage in online spaces. The internet has become a space of hospitality by default, where individuals can enter and interact with each other, regardless of whether or not they were invited.
In Ethical Programs: Hospitality and the Rhetorics of Software, new media scholar James Brown connects this concept of constant digital hospitality to French philosopher Jacques Derrida’s views of the subject in Of Hospitality. Derria describes “absolute hospitality,” in which the host must welcome the “absolute, unknown, anonymous other… without asking of them either reciprocity… or even their names” (Derrida and Dufourmantelle 25). Derrida calls this “absolute hospitality” the “Law of hospitality.” As Brown writes, in relation to the internet this Law decrees that all “are welcomed [into a digital space], regardless of identity or credentials.”
The internet depends upon this “absolute hospitality” at its core. When the internet was developed in Cold War America, it intentionally had no central point but was instead composed of many different nodes across the world that anyone could access to create a decentralized, nuclear attack-proof means of communication.
In his account of the history of the internet, science fiction author Bruce Sterling writes, “it was difficult to stop people from barging in and linking up somewhere-or-other” in the early stages of internet development. “In point of fact,” Sterling continues, “nobody *wanted* to stop them from joining this branching complex of networks, which came to be known as the ‘Internet.’” Limiting access to the internet would have restricted the U.S.’ means of communication in the case of a nuclear war. So by its very nature, the internet is a place of unrestricted access, of “absolute hospitality” regardless of identity or background or status.
“Absolute hospitality” is only one side of the coin, however. Derrida also describes a “conditional hospitality,” one in which a host has the choice to extend a welcome by opening up his or her home. While Derrida discusses hospitality in the physical world, Brown takes this concept and situates it in digital spheres. “And yet,” he writes, “at the very moment that I extend this [absolute] welcome, I immediately begin to filter arrivals. From firewall software to the users that I block from viewing my Twitter feed, I find ways to sift and sort those that arrive at ‘my doorstep’” (Brown). Although the internet is a place of open access and unlimited connection, the Law of hospitality can be “perverted” and “undermined” through filters. This exclusion can be necessary, however, to protect privacy or prevent phishing or cyberbullying, for example. In such instances, the Law of hospitality should be defied through exclusion. Brown and Derrida call these exclusionary filters the lowercase, pluralized “laws of hospitality.”
These two laws, although similar in name, are seemingly contradictory. Both are necessary to create a truly hospitable digital environment, however. Developers, designers, programmers, and internet users should operate under the assumption that all are welcome and all should have access to these digital spaces, but filters are also necessary to prevent harm. This balance between inclusion and exclusion is never rigid. Instead, people must develop “contingent ethical programs that somehow leave open the possibility that we have gone astray” (Brown). In ever-developing software, rigidity can be inhospitable because it prevents the possibility of adjusting for future needs. A program, platform, software, algorithm should never be too inflexible with its filters to inhibit revision.
Brown, drawing from Derrida’s work, provides a helpful structure for digital hospitality in his book Ethical Programs. He outlines the tension and relationship between absolute vs. conditional, inclusive vs. exclusive, obligatory vs. choice in digital spaces. Hosts (designers, developers, programmers, site “owners”) create filters because of the open, unrestricted nature of the internet. This framework is helpful for understanding the theoretical aspects of hospitality, but it does not provide applicable, concrete steps for extending hospitality online. In this project, I attempt to define digital hospitality and outline what that looks like practically in terms of web design. I will center my responses around the question, “What makes a website hospitable?”
To begin with, what is digital hospitality specifically with relation to web design? For a definition of hospitality, see my essay on hospitality and immigration. As discussed above, digital hospitality could mean anyone and everyone is welcome onto a site, regardless of their background or intentions. But I would argue that such openness is impractical and could even be dangerous. On this website, for example, I am already filtering arrivals based on what language my audience speaks (English). I am also inhibiting comments to protect against phishing, rude, or hateful speech, and I am filtering my content by not providing personal names, contact information, or photographs. Hospitality requires borders, most paradoxically, as Matthew Kaemingk argues in Christian Hospitality and Muslim Immigration in an Age of Fear. He writes (147),
“If my family was perpetually open for all to come and go as they please, if I made no distinction between my wife and my neighbor, if I treated my children and neighbor’s children the same, two things would happen. First, my family would lose its integrity and sense of self when no distinction between family and the world is maintained. Second, in losing its integrity, my family would lose its internal capacity to offer hospitality to outsiders in the future.”
A family cannot extend hospitality to strangers unless they first establish boundaries to define who is in the family and who is not. In a similar way, boundaries are necessary in digital spaces in order to distinguish between sites with varying identities and purposes and to protect the privacy and safety of users, customers, and audience members.Those boundaries are difficult to establish on the internet, but they are imperative in order to create a hospitable environment for an intended audience.
Every aspect of web design is a choice to include or exclude, so by nature web design is an example of conditional hospitality. Designers and developers choose certain frameworks, boundaries, and filters to make up their site. What frameworks should be put in place to make a website hospitable? Specifically, how can I make this website into an inclusive, welcoming environment while protecting the interests of those whose experiences it is about?
Many designers and developers would say that the appropriate choices include conventional practices of usability and accessibility. Viewers must be able to see and navigate the content with ease, or else they will leave the site and not return. As one Figma designer writes (“Storytelling”),
“Think of [user-friendly design] as similar to having a guest in your home. You want them to come, see your home, eat, stay a while, and leave knowing they had a good time. If they loved it, they’ll likely come back and visit again. They may even invite other close friends with them as well.”
User-friendly design is a crucial component of digital hospitality because it creates a welcoming digital environment for users. I will outline what usability and accessibility looks like on a website in the following section.
Despite the importance of inclusive design, however, it is not enough by itself to make a site hospitable. No matter how aesthetically pleasing and easy to navigate a house might be, an inedible meal, an uncomfortable bed, or a threatening or ill-mannered host might significantly impact a guest’s experience of hospitality in the home. Websites, similarly, might look pleasing and be easy to navigate but without user trust, engaging content, an appropriate tone, or a clear purpose, users might not enjoy their experience or want to return.
A hospitable website, at the bare minimum, includes basic usability and accessibility practices that makes the site easy to navigate for all people, regardless of accommodations they may need. As Dr. Cyndi Wiley writes in “Nothing About Us Without Us…Including Pizza: The Practice of Designing with Accessibility in Mind,” “Ableism is viewed as the norm. It favors power and privilege in navigating the physical world as well the digital. Ignoring accessibility in design (either unintentionally or intentionally), is a powerful form of oppression” (Wiley). Because of poor accessibility practices, an overwhelming 70% of websites are inaccessible to people who experience disabilities, according to a Nucleus Research study conducted in 2019.1 In this case, inaccessibility and inhospitality are synonymous.
According to Iowa State University’s digital accessibility page, “Digital accessibility is actively designing, developing, and creating content in such a way that it does not hinder any person from interacting with or using the finished product—regardless of the type of digital asset or disability type” (“What is Digital Accessibility?”).
In summary, digital accessibility is active, meaning it is a conscious choice. It is inclusive in its design, so anyone can use the product. It does not discriminate or filter based on ability.
If we look at Derrida and Brown’s framework of hospitality, digital accessibility must look like absolute hospitality, in which “all are welcomed, regardless of identity or credentials [or ability]” (Brown). Practicing digital accessibility means making conscious choices in design to welcome all people regardless of their abilities.
The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is an online, international community dedicated to developing web accessibility standards (“About W3C”). According to W3C’s “Accessibility Principles” page, web accessibility must align with the POUR principles: it must be perceivable, operable, understandable, and robust (“Accessibility Principles”).
Perceivable means content must be presented in alternative formats for those who have difficulty accessing or viewing it. This involves alt text for images, captions and descriptions for audio and video, clear page structures, and clear contrast between background and text (“Accessibility Principles”).
Operable means content can be accessed and navigated without using a mouse. Content must be navigable using a keyboard, any timed elements should allow for extra time or the ability to pause or adjust timed media, any bright or flashing content that might induce seizures or physical reactions must include warnings beforehand, and there must be clear structure and organization (“Accessibility Principles”).
Understandable means content is presented in a language and format that users can easily grasp and navigate. A page must state the language it is written in for screen-readers, layout should follow known patterns and structures to make navigation easier, and any forms or input options should be error sensitive to prevent errors (“Accessibility Principles”).
Robust means content can be accessed across a variety of browsers and technologies both now and in the future. It involves ensuring that all markup is valid, and all non-standard elements include descriptions of what they are and how they are used (“Accessibility Principles”).
These elements are requirements, not suggestions. In order to make websites hospitable, they must comply with these standards so that all people can access them regardless of ability.
Embedded within these accessibility principles is the concept of usability. Several of the W3C principles mention structure and organization as key elements of user-friendly design. Usability encompasses user expectations and the ease to which an individual can navigate a page or site (Juviler). A title and menu at the top of a page, for example, or a footer section at the bottom, are common examples of usability standards today. Website usability is crucial to hospitable web design because it impacts perceptions of trustworthiness.
Research regarding correlations between web design and product sales repeatedly demonstrate connections between usability and customer trust. Because online transactions and interactions occur behind screens, the element of interpersonal trust that occurs with in-person exchanges is lost. Users instead must rely on appearances and perceptions of trustworthiness when visiting a site. As one 2009 report argues, “a good level of perceived usability could lead to higher levels of satisfaction, trust and loyalty towards a specific website” (Flavian et al.). In order to increase usability, designers should “pay particular attention to… ease of navigation, ease of learning, perception and support,” according to a 2001 study of web retail sites (Roy et al). Professor of information systems Yuan Gao added to this criteria in Web Systems Design and Online Consumer Behavior; sites should also have “appropriate search mechanisms, relevant content, and a consistent interface,” should be “fun and efficient” to use, provide product or site customization, and should ensure users’ privacy.” Websites that embody these usability characteristics are more hospitable because people feel more at ease operating them and are more likely to return.
In addition to these qualities of website usability, I would argue that simplicity is a major element of hospitable web design because of its contributions to perceptions of trustworthiness and welcome. Simplicity is linked to navigability; the less clutter or confusion there is, the more trustworthy a site will feel. As author Matt Hicks writes in “Sold on the Simplicity of Web Sites,” “clutter can kill the customer experience. As sites grow in complexity, with more content and functions, too much information can take away from rather than add to the user's time online by causing navigation problems.” Although this article was written in 1999; designers today are still saying the same thing. Fewer clicks, a straightforward flow, minimal pop ups and distractions, and in general “eliminating all of the frustration” makes design so subtle and intuitive that users don’t even notice its presence (Spool). Simplicity in design will boost user perception, making sites more trustworthy and hospitable.
As I discuss in the hospitality and immigration essay, genuine hospitality in the domestic sphere requires a host with appropriate motives. A good host will put his or her guests’ needs first, show them honor and respect, and endeavor to promote their happiness through hospitality. Similarly, a hospitable website will put the user first in whatever form that takes. As Paul Nini writes in “In Search of Ethics in Graphic Design” (2),
“The Designer’s main concern must be to create communications that are helpful to audiences and users and that meet their needs with dignity and respect. Any communication created by a designer that intentionally misleads or confuses must be viewed as a negative reflection on the profession as a whole.”
Manipulation, lies, and misrepresentations disrespect users, breaks down trust, and creates power asymmetry in design. Designers and developers must ask themselves intentional questions throughout the web-building process to understand their project’s purpose, whose needs it is meeting, and how they can better shape their work to welcome and engage users hospitably.
In “Design Education’s Big Gap: Understanding the Role of Power,” professor and Greater Good Studio co-founder George Aye outlines several questions that designers should ask while working on a project. These questions fall into three categories: checking privilege as a designer, establishing a role in transferring power, and growing in curiosity. I found his questions helpful as I considered the purpose of this website.
In addition to consulting Aye’s questions, I also made a list of my own. I wrote a positionality statement toward the beginning of the semester in which I outlined several key questions to help shape my project. On this list are questions about the purpose of my work, its tone, who it serves, what it promotes, and whether it builds community or divides it, among others. This practice is helpful because it encouraged me to consider my audience’s wants and needs, especially those of the people I interviewed. Even though a list of questions is not a prerequisite for hospitality, it is a beneficial tool to help designers and developers put their audience first.
Every aspect of design is a choice. Sometimes, those choices are constrained by skill level or access to technology, but more often than not, designers enjoy a great deal of freedom when building websites. These choices have the power to include or exclude, teach or misinform, manipulate, or otherwise shape users’ experiences in a digital space. As such, every choice requires intentionality and an assessment of users’ needs and wants.
While designing this website, I endeavored to create something simple, accessible, user-friendly, and welcoming both in appearance and content. Because of limited time and skills, the choices I could make were also limited. I would not consider this website a shining example of digital hospitality, but it demonstrates a well-intentioned attempt. In addition, although I have outlined many elements that contribute toward digital hospitality above, this paper is by no means comprehensive. Instead, I hope that this site’s users and this paper’s readers will be encouraged to ask questions and think critically about the topic as they engage in digital spaces moving forward.
For a full bibliography, please visit this page.
1. I found it ironic that the rest of this study was unavailable due to a paywall. ⏎