At this point in the school year, let’s hope you have had a chance to visit the laundry room. Notice anything different? No, the dryers were terrible last year too, and there still isn’t a change machine. It still smells funny, and it’s probably far away from where you live. If there weren’t enough reasons to not do laundry, there is now a hefty 25 percent increase in the price of each load of laundry, both washing and drying. Not to be confused with an unfair tax of some kind, the extra money is going to pay for this new feature, called LaundryView, where students will be able to see whether or not certain machines in the laundry room are being used or not. While a quarter might not seem a lot to some, this move is an example of an overly technologically progressive school not considering the best interests of their students.

Harvard is a very progressive school, especially with regard to technology. Harvard professors, and even Harvard University Hospitality and Dining Services communicate with students via Twitter. Students are expected to download lecture notes, problem sets, and extra reading from course websites. Every student group has an email list; bag lunches can be ordered online. It’s a bit overwhelming, but a student with a computer has the whole campus at their fingertips.

But there is a point at which these upgrades go too far. Was waiting for the laundry really an issue? Where is the survey data that suggests this? They certainly didn’t ask me. It’s possible that LaundryView actively hurts students, as waiting and negotiating for laundry machines with housemates builds community. Additionally, the price increase, while it might seem trite, is a pain for those who pay for laundry in quarters, which means more trips to the bank or store for change. The money adds up, and means students are spending their extra money on laundry, and not on what they really want to buy. As student Esther S. Wu ’13 reported to Flyby blog, “I’d rather spend that on BerryLine.”

There have been many technological applications that have made student’s lives easier. Shuttleboy, for example, is a way for students to get shuttle times and destinations almost instantly via text message. A recent application, the CS50 shopping tool, was a unique application that allowed students to easily navigate through thousands of courses that would normally big a huge hassle. However, this new move is an example of technology being implemented for its own sake. Just because it is possible to let students monitor laundry machines remotely doesn’t mean that they should be able to. Technology should not be considered as the default solution for a logistical problem. It should be put into place only after considering its effect on the community as a whole, its price, and whether the people who will use it actually want it.

While LaundryView will certainly be “helpful” in the sense that it is better having it than not, it certainly isn’t worth the $0.25 per load, especially for students whose budgets are tight as it is. It’s great that Harvard administrators want to make keeping your clothes clean and easier process, but when the students are fronting the bill for Harvard’s need for technological process, the least they can do is ask the students if this is something they need.

Peter L. Knudson ’13, a Crimson editorial writer, lives in Eliot House.