June 19, 2003

Themes in User Experience, Part III - Emotion in Business

At the DUX 2003 conference, I found myself on a panel talking about organizational and business issues. I was substituting for Jeff, who was unable to attend.

It was a great panel -- each panelist presented ways they were able to get folks in their organizations to appreciate user-centered design. After the panelists spoke, I realized a thread emerging about the value of emotional pulls. Bill Bachman from Adobe used "UI Trivia Quizzes" and report cards to make smart interface design less dull, more engaging. Steve Sato found that a CD with video of customer visits and usability tests, "[engaged colleagues] at an emotional level that is rarely touched by logic alone." Jeff had found a similar response when showing tests of the usability of PBS' member stations. Jan-Christoph Zoels showed beautiful design prototypes of washing machines that hinted at compelling future possibilities.

It was surprising, on what was essentially the "business panel" for touchy-feely emotions to keep cropping up. There's a tendency to assume that business is driven by numbers, and in talking to most user experience folks about their difficulties in work with 'business', the primary issue is a lack of good metrics.

This panel showed that metrics is only part of the picture. You need to compel others viscerally as well. It reminded me of a comment my partner Janice made in her workshop on "Managing Design Politics" -- people use their intellect to rationalize a decision already made through emotion.

Posted by peterme at 10:17 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

June 15, 2003

That Tricky Word, "Design"

Appropos of the DUX 2003 conference, I've found myself grappling with my relationship to the word "design." It came to a head on the Tuesday following the conference, when I participated in a panel recapping what had happened. Before it began, I was chatting with co-panelist Hugh Dubberly, and mentioned that in the next iteration of the Adaptive Path website, we will not refer to our work as "user experience design," and are in fact moving away from the word "design" altogether.

What's wrong with "design"? Well, there's nothing wrong with the practice, but plenty wrong with the word's associations. Right now, particularly in the field of web user experience, the word "design", without a modifier, means visual design. Adaptive Path doesn't perform visual design services (though we love partnering with those who do). But, more importantly for us, "design" has been relegated to the world of tactics. "Design" is what happens after the strategy has been settled, the specifications determined, the raison d'etre developed.

This is unfortunate. Design, with a capital D, ought to stretch beyond tactics, and into strategy. Design methods are brilliantly suited to figuring out WHAT to make, not just HOW to make it. I find Herbert Simon's definition apt: "Everyone designs who devise courses of action
aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones. The intellectual activity that produces material artifacts is no different fundamentally from the one that prescribes remedies for a sick patient or the one that devises a new sales plan for a company or a social welfare policy for a state."

However, I see no need to be a champion for the cause of "design." When we hired a consultant to help us reposition our marketing, she had two concerns -- the phrase "user experience" and the word "design." The former concerned her because it's jargon-y, requires definition, and often gets confused with user interface. The latter because she sees the word design in our marketplace being used by firms that don't do what we do, and that we do what they don't do. While we're willing to fight the "user experience" fight, because we feel we can help define it, fighting the "design" fight simply doesn't interest us.

Again, not that we don't do design. Information architecture and interaction design are valuable kinds of design. Even the strategies we craft could be considered 'design'. But, I don't think we're wedded to the term 'design.' None of us went to design school. We don't feel the need to be associated with the word. In fact, we find that potential clients see "design" as a commodity, somewhat interchangeable, and not understanding its true value, often go with the less expensive option.

(For what it's worth, I think pretty much the exact same thing about "usability" as I do "design" -- it's tactical, and quite possibly, even *more* of a commodity. But writing about the term 'usability' would have to be the subject of a whole other post.)

Posted by peterme at 10:12 PM | Comments (22) | TrackBack


See Me Travel
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
Archives from June 13, 2001 to January 2003
Archives from before June 13, 2001
Recent Entries
Themes in User Experience, Part III - Emotion in Business
That Tricky Word, "Design"
Subscribe to my feed:
Powered by
Movable Type 3.2