Digital Technologies • Level 1 HCI external • Evidence before labels
Mātāpono Māori in HCI: Claim-Strength Scaffold
Use this page to decide whether a Māori concept is genuinely helping you analyse an interface, or whether you are attaching a Māori word to an ordinary usability feature after the fact.
1. Start with evidence, not the kupu
- What feature or interaction can I actually observe? __________________________________
- Who is involved? __________________________________
- What relationship, responsibility, authority or language practice is present? __________________________________
- Which usability lens explains this most precisely? __________________________________
It is valid to conclude that Nielsen, accessibility or consistency is the stronger lens. You do not have to force a mātāpono Māori claim.
2. Claim-strength scale
STRONGLY EVIDENCED
The concept names a relationship or issue that is actually present, and you can explain why it matters in this digital context.
POSSIBLE — MORE EVIDENCE NEEDED
There is a plausible connection, but the claim depends on assumptions about people, authority, obligations or context that have not been established.
BETTER EXPLAINED BY ORDINARY HCI
The feature is real, but accessibility, consistency, user control, feedback or another ordinary usability principle already explains it without needing a Māori label.
3. Rangatiratanga: the authority test
NZQA has used “users have control over the interface” as an assessment shorthand. Treat that as an exam-facing prompt, not the whole meaning of rangatiratanga.
- WHO has authority? __________________________________
- OVER WHAT? __________________________________
- WHAT can they genuinely determine, permit, withhold or refuse? __________________________________
Compare: an undo button gives a user interface control. A Māori community determining how data about them may be collected, accessed, interpreted or reused raises a much richer question of authority and self-determination.
4. Test these claims
Mark each as strongly evidenced, possible but incomplete, or better explained by ordinary HCI. Then justify your decision.
A. “This app has a Back button, so it demonstrates rangatiratanga.”
My judgement: ____________________ Because: ______________________________________________
B. “The interface displays te reo Māori correctly, preserves tohutō, and its search accepts Māori words.”
My judgement: ____________________ Because: ______________________________________________
C. “People can comment on posts, so the interface demonstrates whanaungatanga.”
My judgement: ____________________ What else would I need to know? __________________________
D. “An iwi-controlled digital archive lets the iwi determine access conditions for digitised taonga and mātauranga.”
My judgement: ____________________ What authority is visible? ______________________________
E. “This product is durable and reduces waste, so it demonstrates kaitiakitanga.”
My judgement: ____________________ What relationship or responsibility would strengthen the claim? __________________________________
5. Build an exam-ready explanation
Observable feature: ______________________________________________________________
Named user and exact task: ______________________________________________________
Most precise usability principle: _________________________________________________
Specific evidence and how the principle applies: __________________________________
Effect on usability for this user/task: ___________________________________________
Effect on the interface purpose: _________________________________________________
Possible counterargument / limitation: __________________________________________
Boundary sentence: “This is more than simply __________________ because __________________.”
Source reminder
The current standard gives concrete examples including accurate te reo Māori, technological support for te reo Māori, and support for tikanga and mātauranga Māori. Official unpacking makes clear that these examples do not define the Māori concepts. Te Taka Keegan's research on Māori-language interfaces asks what happens when those language choices meet real users and real usability. Contemporary Māori data and algorithmic sovereignty work gives a deeper digital example of rangatiratanga as authority, governance and self-determination.