Appendix · article_357

AIPET 多層級推導與實作映射圖

AIPET: A Layered Derivation and Implementation Map

這張圖是一次 Value Sensitive Design 的操作:圓心是價值,由內而外把價值翻譯成原則、概念模型、互動規範,最後落成可交付的介面組件。四層即 van de Poel 的價值階層,五個扇形是 AIPET 的五個維度;外圈那一圈才是中小企業真正要交付的東西——一個狀態標籤、一個資料提示、一個理由抽屜、一條撤回列。點任一扇形或下方卡片,可單獨檢視該維度。

This map is a Value Sensitive Design exercise. Values sit at the centre; each ring outward translates them into principles, conceptual models, interaction norms, and finally the interface components a team can ship. The four layers follow van de Poel's values hierarchy; the five sectors are the AIPET dimensions. The outer ring is what a small or mid-sized company actually has to deliver — one status badge, one data notice, one rationale drawer, one undo bar. Click any sector or card below to isolate a single dimension.

① Conceptual Investigation

概念投入

Framing the values

誰是利害關係人?什麼價值在其中?價值之間如何衝突?成功由誰認定?

Who are the stakeholders? What values are at stake? Where do they conflict? Who decides what success means?

  • 直接利害關係人:導入 Agent 的第一線員工、部門主管、IT 維運
  • 間接利害關係人:客戶、供應商,以及被自動化決策影響卻從未操作系統的人(Friedman et al., 2006)
  • 以 Berkman Klein 的 47 條原則與 NIST AI RMF 為價值來源,收斂為 AIPET 五維護欄
  • 價值張力優先處理代理邊界 ↔ 效率、可解釋 ↔ 認知負荷兩組衝突
  • Direct stakeholders: frontline staff running the agent, department heads, IT operations
  • Indirect stakeholders: customers and suppliers — and anyone affected by an automated decision who never touches the system (Friedman et al., 2006)
  • Values sourced from the 47 Berkman Klein principles and the NIST AI RMF, then condensed into the five AIPET guardrails
  • Two value tensions take priority: agency ↔ efficiency and explainability ↔ cognitive load

產出L1 原則層 · L2 概念模型層

OUTPUTL1 principles · L2 conceptual models

② Empirical Investigation

實證投入

Grounding in evidence

人們說的與做的是否一致?誰的價值被優先滿足?

Is there a gap between what people say and what they do? Whose values get served first?

  • 本圖以既有實證準則為實證基礎:HAX 18 條準則歷經多輪使用者研究、專家啟發式評估與實地修訂而成(Amershi et al., 2019)
  • PAIR Guidebook 的置信度溝通與優雅降級案例庫
  • 界線:尚未進行本地利害關係人研究;價值張力調查與 value dams and flows(Friedman et al., 2017)列為後續工作
  • This map rests on existing empirical guidelines: the 18 HAX guidelines were revised across four rounds of user studies, expert heuristic evaluation and field testing (Amershi et al., 2019)
  • The PAIR Guidebook's case library on confidence communication and graceful degradation
  • Limit: no local stakeholder study has been run; a value-tension survey and value dams and flows (Friedman et al., 2017) remain future work

產出L3 互動準則層

OUTPUTL3 interaction norms

③ Technical Investigation

技術投入

Building the artifacts

既有技術屬性如何支持或妨礙價值?如何主動設計以承載價值?

How do existing technical properties support or hinder values? How do we design proactively to carry them?

  • 回溯分析:檢視現行 Agent 介面如何隱藏自治層級、資料流向與不可逆動作
  • 主動設計:五個跨 Agent 通用組件(Badge/Rationale/Pill/Receipt/Undo)即為價值的技術承載體
  • Gerdes & Frandsen(2023)指出技術投入是 VSD 近三十年來最常被略過的一環;本圖的 L4 正是要補上這個缺口
  • Retrospective analysis: how current agent interfaces hide autonomy level, data flow and irreversible actions
  • Proactive design: five cross-agent components (Badge / Rationale / Pill / Receipt / Undo) as the technical carriers of the values
  • Gerdes & Frandsen (2023) find technical investigations to be the step most often skipped across three decades of VSD; L4 is this map's attempt to close that gap

產出L4 跨 Agent 通用 Pattern 層

OUTPUTL4 cross-agent patterns

CORE價值VALUES
COREValues
→
L1原則PRINCIPLES
L1Principles
→
L2概念模型CONCEPTUAL MODELS
L2Conceptual models
→
L3規範準則NORMS
L3Norms
→
L4設計需求DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
L4Design requirements

VSD 是 value-driven,與 principles 並不衝突。價值是原則的基礎,原則則是價值在特定情境下的規則化表述——所以 NIST 與 Berkman Klein 這類原則文件不是外加的合規清單,而是 AIPET 五個價值的下游產物。這條由價值到設計需求的翻譯鏈取自 van de Poel(2013)的價值階層;Umbrello & van de Poel(2021)已示範如何把高階 AI 原則當作中介規範接回 VSD,使抽象價值得以落成可驗收的技術要求。

VSD is value-driven, and that does not put it at odds with principles. Values are the ground of principles; principles are what those values look like once they are stated as rules for a particular setting. So NIST and Berkman Klein are not a compliance checklist bolted on from outside — they are downstream of the five AIPET values. The translation chain from value to design requirement comes from van de Poel's (2013) values hierarchy, and Umbrello & van de Poel (2021) show how high-level AI principles can serve as the intermediate norms that carry abstract values into technical requirements a team can actually check.

Lineage從研究方法到可稽核的產業流程From a research method to an auditable industry process

① 1996 –

Value Sensitive Design

FRIEDMAN & KAHN · UW

研究方法本體:概念/實證/技術三部曲,加上 17 種具名方法(利害關係人分析、value scenario、value dams and flows、Envisioning Cards…;見 VSD Lab)。

The method itself: conceptual / empirical / technical investigations, plus 17 named methods (stakeholder analysis, value scenarios, value dams and flows, Envisioning Cards…; see the VSD Lab).

② 2013 – 2015

Design for Values

VAN DEN HOVEN · TU DELFT

把 VSD 接上工程規格:價值階層(value → norm → design requirement)。生質燃料案例示範一個抽象價值如何一路長成可驗收的條件。

Bolts VSD onto engineering specification via the values hierarchy (value → norm → design requirement). The biofuels case shows one abstract value growing into checkable conditions.

③ 2021

IEEE 7000

SPIEKERMANN ET AL. · IEEE SA

VSD 的產業標準版,也是目前唯一可稽核的流程:情境探索 → 價值引出與排序 → 倫理價值需求 → 風險導向設計 → 透明度管理。企業能拿它主張合規。

VSD's industry standard, and the only auditable process version to date: context exploration → value elicitation and prioritisation → ethical value requirements → risk-based design → transparency management. A company can hold it up as compliance.

④ THIS MAP

AIPET

PRIVACYUX · 2026

補上標準沒有規定的最後一段:介面長什麼樣。IEEE 7000 產出的是需求文件,AIPET 產出的是使用者按得到的五個組件。

Supplies the last stretch the standard leaves open: what the interface looks like. IEEE 7000 yields requirement documents; AIPET yields five components a user can actually click.

為什麼中小企業要在意這條線。把 AIPET 說成「設計哲學」,採購與稽核不會買單;把它掛在 IEEE 7000 下游,它就是一份可以寫進規格書的交付清單。標準規定了「價值必須被引出、排序、變成需求」,卻沒有規定需求在螢幕上如何呈現——這正是本圖 L4 的位置。

Why an SME should care about this lineage. Call AIPET a design philosophy and procurement will not buy it; hang it downstream of IEEE 7000 and it becomes a delivery list that can go into a specification. The standard requires that values be elicited, prioritised and turned into requirements — it says nothing about how those requirements appear on screen. That gap is exactly where L4 sits.

L1 · 原則 · ① CONCEPTUALL1 · PRINCIPLES · ① CONCEPTUAL頂層治理與權責Governance & accountabilityNIST AI RMF / Berkman Klein 共識NIST AI RMF / Berkman Klein consensus
L2 · 概念模型 · ① CONCEPTUALL2 · MODELS · ① CONCEPTUAL人機哲學核心Human–AI philosophyShneiderman HCAI / Endsley SAShneiderman HCAI / Endsley SA
L3 · 規範 · ② EMPIRICALL3 · NORMS · ② EMPIRICAL體驗與互動原則Interaction guidelinesMicrosoft HAX / Google PAIRMicrosoft HAX / Google PAIR
L4 · 設計需求 · ③ TECHNICALL4 · REQUIREMENTS · ③ TECHNICAL跨 Agent 通用 PatternCross-agent patterns中小企業可落地的介面組件Interface components an SME can ship
NIST G&M · BKC 能力與權限邊界 Capability &authority limits HCAI AUTONOMY 劃定自治層級 Set the levelof autonomy HAX G1 · G2 明示能力與錯誤率 Make capabilitiesand error ratesexplicit 行動層級標籤ACTION BADGE Action LevelBadge A · AGENCY · 代理邊界 A · AGENCY · BOUNDARIES OF ACTION BKC FAIRNESS 公平與代表性 Fairness &representation HCAI DIVERSITY 跨角色心智模型 Mental modelsacross roles HAX G6 · PAIR 避免偏見與刻板印象 Mitigate bias andstereotyping 白話因果卡PLAIN-ENGLISHRATIONALE Plain-LanguageRationale Card I · INCLUSIVENESS · 認知包容 I · INCLUSIVENESS · COGNITIVE INCLUSION NIST · BKC DATA 資料最小化 Data minimization HCAI CONTEXT 上下文安全邊界 Contextual safetyboundaries HAX G10 · PAIR 存疑時限縮服務 Scope services downwhen in doubt 資料外送警示膠囊DATA INGESTION PILL Data Ingestion Pill P · PRIVACY · 隱私邊界 P · PRIVACY · DATA BOUNDARIES NIST · BKC TRANSP. 可追溯與透明 Traceable &transparent ENDSLEY SA L2·L3 意義理解與預測 Comprehensionand projection HAX G4 · G11 顯示情境並解釋行為 Show context andexplain behavior 點擊式決策收據RECEIPT DRAWER DecisionReceipt Drawer E · EXPLAINABILITY · 可解釋性 E · EXPLAINABILITY · ACCOUNTABLE REASONS BKC ACCOUNTABILITY 補救義務與歸責 Remedy &accountability HCAI HIGH CONTROL 人類始終可否決 Humans canalways override HAX G9 · G16 高效更正與復原 Efficient correctionand recovery 通用後悔藥列UNDO DOCK UniversalUndo Dock T · TRUST · 信任與更正 T · TRUST · CORRECTION & RECOVERY AIPET 五項價值 FIVE VALUES 由內而外 · 價值階層四層推導 OUTWARD · FOUR-LAYER VALUES HIERARCHY VSD TRIPARTITE · FRIEDMAN & HENDRY (2019) L1 頂層治理與權責① CONCEPTUAL · 原則 Governance & duty① CONCEPTUAL · PRINCIPLES L2 人機哲學核心① CONCEPTUAL · 模型 HAI philosophy① CONCEPTUAL · MODELS L3 體驗與互動原則② EMPIRICAL · 規範 Interaction norms② EMPIRICAL · GUIDELINES L4 跨 Agent 通用 Pattern③ TECHNICAL · 設計需求 Cross-agent patterns③ TECHNICAL · REQUIREMENTS
A

Agency

代理邊界

Boundaries of action

L1 · ①頂層治理與權責Governance & accountability
  • NIST Govern & Map
  • 界定 AI 權限與能力極限
  • BKC: Human Control
  • NIST Govern & Map
  • Define the agent's authority and capability limits
  • BKC: Human Control
L2 · ①人機哲學核心Human–AI philosophy
  • 劃定自治層級
  • 人類決定電腦自主程度
  • 拒絕全自動黑盒子
  • Set the level of autonomy
  • People decide how autonomous the machine is
  • Refuse the fully automated black box
L3 · ②體驗與互動原則Interaction guidelines
  • HAX G1 & G2
  • 明確標示系統能做什麼
  • 說明系統出錯可能性
  • HAX G1 & G2
  • State clearly what the system can do
  • State how often it gets things wrong
L4 · ③跨 Agent 通用 PatternCross-agent patterns
  • 行動層級標籤 (Action Badge)
  • 強制三態:草稿/建議/代行
  • 執行前影響預覽與權限摘要
  • Action Level Badge
  • Three mandatory states: draft / suggest / act
  • Impact preview and permission summary before execution
I

Inclusiveness

認知包容

Cognitive inclusion

L1 · ①頂層治理與權責Governance & accountability
  • BKC: Fairness
  • 非歧視與公平性
  • 代表性與邊緣情境防護
  • BKC: Fairness
  • Non-discrimination and fairness
  • Representation and edge-case protection
L2 · ①人機哲學核心Human–AI philosophy
  • 跨角色心智模型
  • 系統應適應人類多元背景
  • 避免將非典型用法標為異常
  • Mental models across roles
  • The system adapts to diverse human backgrounds
  • Never flag atypical use as anomalous
L3 · ②體驗與互動原則Interaction guidelines
  • HAX G6:避免偏見與刻板印象
  • PAIR: 白話心智模型校準
  • HAX G6: mitigate social biases
  • PAIR: calibrate mental models in plain language
L4 · ③跨 Agent 通用 PatternCross-agent patterns
  • 白話因果卡 (Plain-English Rationale)
  • 格式:一句結論+兩點依據+一個盲點
  • 消滅純技術評分,非專家亦能審閱
  • Plain-Language Rationale Card
  • Format: one claim + two reasons + one blind spot
  • No bare technical scores — a non-expert can review it
P

Privacy

隱私邊界

Data boundaries

L1 · ①頂層治理與權責Governance & accountability
  • NIST: 資料最小化
  • 上下文資料存取隔離
  • BKC: Control over Data
  • NIST: data minimization
  • Contextual isolation of data access
  • BKC: Control over Data
L2 · ①人機哲學核心Human–AI philosophy
  • 上下文安全邊界
  • 防止企業數據淪為寄生算力
  • 明確內外部資料流向
  • Contextual safety boundaries
  • Keep company data from becoming parasitic compute
  • Make internal vs. external data flow explicit
L3 · ②體驗與互動原則Interaction guidelines
  • HAX G10:存疑時限縮服務範圍
  • PAIR: 優雅降級與安全隔離
  • HAX G10: scope services down when in doubt
  • PAIR: graceful degradation and safe isolation
L4 · ③跨 Agent 通用 PatternCross-agent patterns
  • 資料外送警示膠囊 (Data Ingestion Pill)
  • 輸入框旁常駐:本地/脫敏/公網外送
  • 阻斷敏感資料貼入外部模型
  • Data Ingestion Pill
  • Persistent beside the input: local / masked / sent to the public net
  • Block sensitive data from being pasted into external models
E

Explainability

可解釋性

Accountable reasons

L1 · ①頂層治理與權責Governance & accountability
  • NIST: 可追溯與透明
  • 可審計的決策依據
  • BKC: Transparency
  • NIST: traceable and transparent
  • Auditable grounds for a decision
  • BKC: Transparency
L2 · ①人機哲學核心Human–AI philosophy
  • 情境覺知支撐 (Endsley)
  • 提供意義理解(L2)
  • 支援未來狀態預測(L3)
  • Situation awareness support (Endsley)
  • Supply comprehension (SA Level 2)
  • Support projection of future state (SA Level 3)
L3 · ②體驗與互動原則Interaction guidelines
  • HAX G4 & G11
  • 顯示情境相關資訊
  • 解釋為何採取該行為
  • HAX G4 & G11
  • Show contextually relevant information
  • Explain why the system acted
L4 · ③跨 Agent 通用 PatternCross-agent patterns
  • 點擊式決策收據 (Receipt Drawer)
  • 側邊抽屜展開引用來源與限制
  • 註明依據文件版本、日期與盲點
  • Click-through Decision Receipt
  • A side drawer opens the cited sources and their limits
  • Note the source document's version, date and blind spots
T

Trust

信任與更正

Correction & recovery

L1 · ①頂層治理與權責Governance & accountability
  • BKC: Accountability & Remedy
  • 自動化決策之補救義務
  • 法律與人為責任歸屬
  • BKC: Accountability & Remedy
  • Duty to remedy automated decisions
  • Legal and human allocation of responsibility
L2 · ①人機哲學核心Human–AI philosophy
  • 雙軸高控制 (High Control)
  • 人類始終握有否決與牽引權
  • 隨時可介入修正系統
  • High control on both axes
  • People always keep veto and steering power
  • Intervene and correct at any time
L3 · ②體驗與互動原則Interaction guidelines
  • HAX G9 & G16
  • 支援高效更正與復原
  • 傳達動作之連帶後果
  • HAX G9 & G16
  • Support efficient correction and recovery
  • Convey the knock-on consequences of an action
L4 · ③跨 Agent 通用 PatternCross-agent patterns
  • 通用後悔藥列 (Undo Dock)
  • 不可逆動作附帶延遲倒數與撤回
  • 一鍵回滾按鈕與問題回報通道
  • Universal Undo Dock
  • Irreversible actions carry a delay countdown and a recall
  • One-click rollback plus a channel to report problems

References

  1. Amershi, S., Weld, D., Vorvoreanu, M., Fourney, A., Nushi, B., Collisson, P., Suh, J., Iqbal, S., Bennett, P. N., Inkpen, K., Teevan, J., Kikin-Gil, R., & Horvitz, E. (2019). Guidelines for human-AI interaction. Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Paper 3, pp. 1–13). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300233 (18 條準則,經四輪實證修訂與專家評議;後收入 HAX Toolkit——本圖 L3 的實證來源)(18 guidelines, revised over four rounds of validation and expert review; later folded into the HAX Toolkit — the empirical source for L3)
  2. Borning, A., & Muller, M. (2012). Next steps for value sensitive design. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1125–1134). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208560 (對 VSD 的方法論批評:需明示「研究者的聲音」、避免以普世價值名義代言)(methodological critique of VSD: make the researcher's own voice explicit; do not speak for others under the banner of universal values)
  3. Endsley, M. R. (1995). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37(1), 32–64. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872095779049543
  4. Fjeld, J., Achten, N., Hilligoss, H., Nagy, A., & Srikumar, M. (2020). Principled artificial intelligence: Mapping consensus in ethical and rights-based approaches to principles for AI (Berkman Klein Center Research Publication No. 2020-1). Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society, Harvard University. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3518482 (BKC 頁:36 份文件、8 主題、47 條原則;本圖的同心圓形式即取法其 Principled AI 圖表)(BKC page: 36 documents, 8 themes, 47 principles; this map's concentric form follows their Principled AI chart)
  5. Friedman, B., & Hendry, D. G. (2019). Value sensitive design: Shaping technology with moral imagination. MIT Press. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262039536/value-sensitive-design/ (本圖工作方法的主架構:概念、實證、技術三種調查交織疊代)(the main frame for this map's method: conceptual, empirical and technical investigations, interleaved and iterated)
  6. Friedman, B., Hendry, D. G., & Borning, A. (2017). A survey of value sensitive design methods. Foundations and Trends in Human–Computer Interaction, 11(2), 63–125. https://doi.org/10.1561/1100000015 (系統整理 VSD 方法庫,含 value dams and flows、value scenarios、Envisioning Cards;方法清單後經 Friedman & Hendry (2019) 與 VSD Lab 擴充為 17 種)(the systematic catalogue of VSD methods — value dams and flows, value scenarios, Envisioning Cards; the list is extended to 17 in Friedman & Hendry (2019) and on the VSD Lab site)
  7. Friedman, B., Kahn, P. H., Jr., & Borning, A. (2006). Value sensitive design and information systems. In P. Zhang & D. Galletta (Eds.), Human-computer interaction in management information systems: Foundations (pp. 348–372). M.E. Sharpe. (直接∕間接利害關係人之區分出處)(origin of the direct / indirect stakeholder distinction)
  8. Gerdes, A., & Frandsen, T. F. (2023). A systematic review of almost three decades of value sensitive design (VSD): What happened to the technical investigations? Ethics and Information Technology, 25(2), 26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-023-09700-2 (技術投入是最常被略過的一環;本圖 L4 即針對此缺口)(technical investigations are the step most often skipped; L4 targets that gap)
  9. Google PAIR. (n.d.). People + AI guidebook. Google. Retrieved September 16, 2026, from https://pair.withgoogle.com/guidebook-v2/ (置信度見 Explainability + Trust;降級見 Errors + Graceful Failure)(confidence: Explainability + Trust; degradation: Errors + Graceful Failure)
  10. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. (2021). IEEE Standard Model Process for Addressing Ethical Concerns during System Design (IEEE Std 7000-2021). IEEE Standards Association. https://standards.ieee.org/ieee/7000/6781/ (VSD 的產業標準版,也是目前唯一可稽核的流程;本圖 L4 對應其「倫理價值需求」的介面實作缺口)(VSD's industry standard and the only auditable process version to date; L4 addresses the interface gap left open by its ethical value requirements)
  11. Klein, G., Woods, D. D., Bradshaw, J. M., Hoffman, R. R., & Feltovich, P. J. (2004). Ten challenges for making automation a “team player” in joint human-agent activity. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 19(6), 91–95. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2004.74 (提出 Basic Compact:人與自動化要協作,必須先有一份可維持、可退出的相互承諾——AIPET 作為「人機互動契約」的最直接文獻依據)(introduces the Basic Compact — joint activity requires a sustained, revocable mutual commitment; the closest literature anchor for reading AIPET as a human–agent contract)
  12. National Institute of Standards and Technology. (n.d.). AI risk management framework. U.S. Department of Commerce. Retrieved September 16, 2026, from https://www.nist.gov/itl/ai-risk-management-framework (含 Generative AI Profile)(includes the Generative AI Profile)
  13. Rahwan, I. (2018). Society-in-the-loop: Programming the algorithmic social contract. Ethics and Information Technology, 20(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-017-9430-8 (把價值與原則明確稱為「演算法社會契約」,但層級在社會而非介面)(names values and principles an “algorithmic social contract” — pitched at the level of society rather than the interface)
  14. Shneiderman, B. (2020). Human-centered artificial intelligence: Reliable, safe & trustworthy. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 36(6), 495–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2020.1741118
  15. Spiekermann, S. (2023). Value-based engineering: A guide to building ethical technology for humanity. De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110793383 (IEEE 7000 主筆者的實作指南,把價值引出與排序寫成企業可執行的步驟)(the practitioner guide by IEEE 7000's lead author, turning value elicitation and prioritisation into steps a company can run)
  16. Spiekermann, S., & Winkler, T. (2022). Value-based engineering with IEEE 7000. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 41(3), 71–80. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4142396 (從價值清單走向價值工程:說明為何條列式原則清單不足以指導開發)(from value lists to value-based engineering: why a bulleted list of principles cannot steer development)
  17. Umbrello, S., & van de Poel, I. (2021). Mapping value sensitive design onto AI for social good principles. AI and Ethics, 1(3), 283–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-021-00038-3 (示範將高階 AI 原則作為中介規範接回 VSD;本圖「價值 → 原則」接線的依據)(shows how high-level AI principles serve as intermediate norms inside VSD; the basis for this map's value → principle link)
  18. van den Hoven, J., Vermaas, P. E., & van de Poel, I. (Eds.). (2015). Handbook of ethics, values, and technological design: Sources, theory, values and application domains. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6970-0 (Delft 的 Design for Values 典籍;本圖的價值階層即取自此脈絡,經典示例為生質燃料)(the Delft Design for Values canon; this map's values hierarchy comes from this line of work, with biofuels as its standard worked example)
  19. van de Poel, I. (2013). Translating values into design requirements. In D. P. Michelfelder, N. McCarthy, & D. E. Goldberg (Eds.), Philosophy and engineering: Reflections on practice, principles and process (pp. 253–266). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7762-0_20 (價值階層:values → norms → design requirements,即本圖四層的推導骨架;van den Hoven 於 TU Delft 以生質燃料為例推廣此圖式)(values hierarchy: values → norms → design requirements — the derivation spine of this map's four layers; van den Hoven teaches the same schema at TU Delft with the biofuels case)
  20. VSD Lab. (n.d.). Value sensitive design: Overview of methods. University of Washington. Retrieved September 17, 2026, from https://vsdesign.org/vsd/ (17 種具名方法的現行清單與工具包)(the current list of 17 named methods and their toolkits)

PrivacyUX · 2026-09 · 方法架構:Value Sensitive Design(Friedman & Hendry, 2019)
同心圓資訊結構取法 Berkman Klein Center《Principled AI》圖表

PrivacyUX · 2026-09 · Method: Value Sensitive Design (Friedman & Hendry, 2019)
Concentric structure after the Berkman Klein Center's Principled AI chart