Designing for developing communities

Fastco debates the ethics of user research in developing communities, to help global companies target their products. The discussion is sparked by Jan Chipchase, once a researcher at Nokia, now at Frog, who has made a career of reaching otherwise unresearched locations and whom I suspect may have been in Don Norman's mind when he wrote critically of the relevance of user research 'you get to go to exotic locations, to watch people do intimate acts, and then to come back and tell the world what you have seen.'

I understand Norman's tetchniness; I understand Chipchase's critics who question the use of his research to create artificial need for global products; the communication of some global research projects has made me wonder 'for whose benefit' in the past. But the alternative of imposing unresearched products and services on developing communities seems even less acceptable. As Chipchase points out 'the poor can least afford poor products'. Fastco describes the development of the Firefly infant phototherapy unit, developed by Design That Matters for use in Vietnam, and I'm reminded of the incubator developed by Stanford's d.school, neither of which would have been developed in their current form without research in the context in which they are to be used.

Design thinking won't save you

Nice post by Helen Walters, which makes a point some people have missed: that 'design thinking' is a multi-disciplinary idea generation process, but isn't 'design'.

Don Norman and poorly researched design

Don Norman is in typical form here. Taking as his starting point, Kevin McCullagh's comments on the relevance of traditional design skills to many modern design problems, Norman is vexed by the simplistic design solutions to difficult social and environmental problems that often win design awards (awards where, to quote, 'the uninformed judge the uninformed'). He links back from these headline winners to the inadequacies of the design education that led to them. I'm not sure a direct link is fair. Often design firms propose solutions to high-profile, complex problems as PR pieces, usually without the context of working with a client who can help focus design work. On the basis that there's no such thing as bad publicity,* these PR proposals seem to work well, and provide affirmation to the design team which, yes, can then result in naivety or optimism about the problems they can tackle well.

In Norman's eyes, though, the responsibility for the over-confidence these solutions represent lies with design education that fails to teach designers how to research problems and test solutions. He thinks design schools  perpetuate a culture that cherry picks superficial research findings, and bends them to its purpose (see Harry Brignull's comments on this tradition). Norman mitigates his criticisms (although I think he's tough enough not to feel any threat) by conceding that design is a different discipline from science and engineering and brings different qualities to product development. He also acknowledges that research in human sciences has its own agenda; not, in many cases, to inform designers.

Many of the issues Norman raises are cultural problems with foundations in the psychology of individuals and teams. I recently gave a talk about working in user experience design to a university research group of artists, designers and psychologists. One of the artists asked why my role was needed since everything I had said about understanding users and testing ideas was so obvious, don't designers do it anyway? As an example I talked about the need to test design solutions and revise them in the light of feedback from people outside the design team, and asked him how he felt when a paper he had written was returned to him for revision, editing etc. Did he ever feel reviewers had misunderstood his intentions, some reluctance to revise? Then imagine those feelings transferred to a team, committed to working on a product or service together together. He began to see what I meant.

*Tangentially, note piece in the NY Times about unscrupulous business, DecorMyEyes, using adverse commentary on the web to drive hits to its site and elevate its ranking in Google searches. Anecdotally, from Google's analytics of this blog, I see that one of the most frequent searches hits my post on IDEO's speculative work on the Bloomberg screen, a project that received as much negative as positive commentary. 

[Norman article via InfoDesign; NY Times article via Tim O'Reilly]

Skimming research findings

Just a note of Harry Brignull's comments on how much design research (especially in web design) is reported as press releases and 'top ten tips', without the context, study design, caveats and any counter findings, typical of scientific reporting, that help qualify the research. A comment by Rob Gillham points to this excellent example of the phenomenom (on a pet hobbyhorse: the impact of making people scroll to find information).

Design thinking and the king's new clothes

'Design thinkers over-simplify by presenting design to business as a clear and codified process of methods, tools, and steps that can be learned by nondesigners. While explaining design as an algorithm goes down well with managers, this pitch skips over the pivotal importance of talent and craft.'

From one of two recent articles by Kevin McCullagh dissecting some of the hype around design thinking. The methods designers use can be a revelation, and very productive, when introduced to organisations accustomed to linear, top-down processes. When used collaboratively with expert teams (who have deep understanding of their own organisation), they can produce great solutions. They're also useful life tools for people to learn, redressing the balance in an education that can be over-focused on analytic and reductive approaches. But they're not 'the solution' in themselves. And, actually, there not always simple to carry out. Reflecting on my earlier posting on Axel Unger's presentation of IDEO's user-centred design methods (which I think avoided over-hyping the process) I neglected to mention the effort that is required to visualise and prototype ideas in order to get feedback and refine them. Even relatively rough prototypes can be difficult (and, potentially, expensive) to prepare, and so can be challenging for non-designers and their organisations. Certainly the level of prototyping shown in Unger's case studies was not trivial. 

In his second article, McCullagh tackles the myth of the T-shaped designer (i.e. that the designer has specific, inspirational skills in thinking about the broad context of design work, as well as skills in the detail of proposing, developing and specifying design solutions). McCullagh points out how the myth can result in a naive overconfidence about designers' capacity to solve complex social problems (and that there is a history of failure when designers over-extend themselves). Timely. I still wince to recall a TV interview where a designer claimed, with no apparent foundation, that while designers were T-shaped, architects were not. The truth is, if you like T-shaped as a metaphor, that within any profession there will be people who are better able than others to think across boundaries, or to work with others to do so, and to bring that expertise to their own deep understanding of their core domain, to develop ideas creatively. 

Design process and user participation

Balanced presentation by Axel Unger of IDEO Munich, on design process and its potential role in healthcare innovation. Gives a well-reasoned explanation of the processes user-centred designers use and encourages people commissioning design to 'design everything' i.e. think not just of the product but the context in which it's embedded (in service design speak 'the touch points'). I can't emphasise the importance of this enough. It also shows how IDEO involves end-users in design i.e. giving tools and supporting idea development, without making wild claims for participation and co-creation. Refreshing.

The talk includes PR videos of IDEO's work both with Mayo and Kaiser, both strong on user involvement and participation. Doctors from Mayo explaining that it's not the just the medical technology that's critical, but how it's implemented (pace the references to left and right brain!), and the Kaiser case study shows a participatory project to develop better processes for hand-overs including checklists and structured communication between medics and between medics and patients. IDEO claim that the Kaiser work has reduced both errors and the time nurses need to spend communicating with patients, and results in happier patients.

The future of interaction design and its ethics

Matt Webb gives his vision of 'What comes after mobile' here. Paraphrasing very crudely: more nuanced, emotionally-based and sensitive interactions between people, information, things and environments, using artificial intelligence as a component of design, with apparently simple interactions often supported by heavy-duty computational resources. At the end of his talk there is an interesting question about the people who do not want to be part of the tagged, networked, tracked world that Webb envisages, and a good response from Webb on the failure, often, to question the ethical implications of design projects.

More directly, Harry Brignull, presents his thoughts on Dark Patterns (see his dedicated web site here), where design gulls users into giving information, signing up for and paying for services etc., often without intending to. Brignull comments on how some UX professionals must be allowing/enabling some of these tricks. Indeed, or pointing out that they're problematic and being ignored.

My own experience is that there can be really awkward situations where the only options is to bow out of a project when you have picked up on factors that are potentially harmful to users (for example compromising personal safety) but your concerns have fallen on deaf ears. Bound by commercial confidentiality, and assuming the intention behind the project isn't criminal, there's nothing else one can do. However you're left with the knowledge that someone else, perhaps more compliant, will take over where you've left off.


[Matt Webb talk via InfoDesign]

Are usability agencies overblown?

As usual, some very insightful comments from Harry Brignull, on the competition usability agencies face from freelancers who offer essentially the same service, without the overhead of expensive offices or testing suites. Recently had a similar conversation with a client whom I was helping select an agency to carry out research. Not to mention that agencies, running at a low level of permanent staff in order to limit their overheads, often, themselves, use freelancers to staff their projects.

Obliquity in complex systems

John Kay writes on the risks of over-focused strategies across contexts including business, forestry, exploration, architecture, and even the pursuit of happiness and longevity. He advises that broader, more 'oblique' approaches underlie outstanding success. It's an attractive philosophy. The difficulty might lie, though, in distinguishing between obliquity and distraction.

Kay quotes Jim Collins' and Jerry Porras' comparison of Merck and Pfizer in Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies which compared outstanding companies with their successful, but less outstanding, competitors:
- Merck philosophy, as expressed by George Merck, 'We try never to forget that medicine is for the people. It is not for the profits... The better we have remembered that, the larger [profits] have been'
- Pfizer philosophy, as expressed by one time president, John McKeen, 'So far as humanly possible, we aim to get profit out of everything we do.'

A nice quote for the enterprise of user experience.

Obliquity article via Alex Pang

Science and innovation

Alex Pang comments here on the complex relationship between science and business innovation, suggesting that bringing the two together is a relatively recent phenomenon and one that requires certain preconditions to work:
- the involvement of 'translators' who can help make the link between science innovation and its application outside the lab
- a rich expertise in application in the culture where the science is being developed (he points to Denmark's lead in pervasive computing; Silicon Valley's in electric vehicles)
- a recognition that science research and business do operate very differently and that trying to 'squish' scientists into business thinking may be unproductive (not sure Peter Mandelson would like this one)
- the need to recognise new areas where science can have an impact, citing modelling human behaviour in e-commerce as an example. (I'll gloss over his mention of neuroimaging in advertising.)

Controversial green concept car

I suppose Renault and cosmetics manufacturer, Biotherm, could count the launch of their concept electric city car, Spa Car, a success. It creates a spa in the interior, with skin hydrating temperature and humidity, and the addition of a diffuser to emit essential oils to calm or stimulate the driver, according to preference. Sparked some enraged comments on the Wired write up. PR profession, dix points; environment, nul.

Huffington Post discovers 'Design Thinking'

Gushing article on the power of design thinking to solve gnarly problems in education, the health service and care of the elderly, lining up for the usual players to strut their stuff in future articles. I'm not rejecting the whole enterprise but think the claims for the power of design thinking are often overstated. There's a nice, levelling comment from Nico Macdonald.

Primer on ethnographic research techniques

Getting People to Talk: An Ethnography & Interviewing Primer from Gabe & Kristy on Vimeo.

This video looks as though it was a student project, maybe the beginning of an IIT initiative to set up a video library on innovation technique. Even if the library didn't materialise the video's a useful introduction for those setting about their first observations, contextual interviews, or project ethnography. Interviews with professional researchers make the point that observational study can be used to reframe thinking about a product or service from end-users' perspectives. And for those who don't need convincing it contains a nice section at the end (so persevere or jump there) where Jeremy Alexis watches footage of himself interviewing and picks up a few (somewhat staged) problems with his technique. A good reminder.

Is recession pricking our conscience?

Mark Anderson (via John Naughton) says 'tech alone is boring,' unless ...it can do something really meaningful, like provide food to a village, or health care, or clean water, then technology really is magic' and calls for a return to science, not for it's own sake, but to solve the real problems we face as humans.

Elsewhere, The School of Life has scheduled a lecture on Good Design by design doyenne, Alice Rawsthorne (who once, I think, filled the UK Design Museum with Manolos). Her blurb reads:
'There are 6.5 billion people on this planet, 90 percent of whom can't afford basic products and services. Half of them don't have regular access to food, shelter or clean water. Yet when we talk about design, it's usually about visual eye candy, a cute new chair or digital device.'

Gosh.

David Kelley interviewed

My one-time employer, is interviewed by Fast Company, to celebrate his receiving the Edison Award for Innovation, which he will now be able to add to his many other awards. I liked the account by his brother, Tom, of David Kelley's proposal to the president of Stanford University that he set up the now hugely successful graduate programme in innovation, d.school, under Stanford's auspices:

"When David was making the case for the d.school at Stanford," says Tom Kelley, "he went to [university president John] Hennessy and said, 'Look, we're good at "deep." We have Nobel Laureates drilling down into esoteric topics. But what if there are problems that aren't solved by deep, but broad? We should have a side bet in broad.'

Via Putting People First

What user experience design is/is not

A post by Whitney Hess on Mashable, lists some common misconceptions about user experience design. According to Hess's account of writing the piece she put it together by sending Twitter DMs to people she thought would have answers to the question '“What do you consider to be the biggest misconception about user experience design?” and within a couple of days had a wide-ranging set of responses which she has collated into a neat list of ten. A key theme emerging from the article is that working on user experience isn't just one sequence of processes, but that different approaches and tools are needed according to the design problem and that good user experiences are created by bringing together different skills.

Elsewhere Jesse James Garrett is interviewed by Theresa Brazen and gives the inverse to Hess's account, by describing what user experience design is.

Via Putting People First

Liz Sanders' design research map

Liz Sanders has devised an interesting diagram mapping different approaches to design research on the axes of 'design- v. research-led' and 'expert- v. participatory-mindset' (see Interactions, Nov/Dec 2008.) I think it would be fair to say her goal is to promote design-led and participatory approaches, which she believes will serve better in addressing future, 'fuzzy questions' than classical, research-led methods. By 'fuzzy' she means questions such as 'how to provide for an ageing population' or 'how to reduce consumption of fossil fuels.' She writes more about this in her joint paper with Pieter Jan Stappers, submitted to CoDesign. I see her point. Participatory research is often mentioned only as an afterthought in discussion of research techniques and most of the literature of user research stems from a research-led perspective.

Of course we can never really do the comparison to know whether one research approach works better than another (we could try but there are many ways in which such a comparison might be flawed). But I think most practitioners would agree that open-ended research methods in the early stages of a design project are likely to generate a wide range of ideas to consider for further development; and that close involvement with potential users gives designers the best chance of honing new products and services to meet people's needs. (I'm with many in not particularly liking the word 'users' but sometimes it's the only one that works.)

Since my background is originally in the research-led, expert-mindset quadrant of the research map I can't help feeling slightly piqued at Sanders' and Stappers' caricature of it as over-constrained and hierarchical. I think most experienced practitioners use a range of techniques to get the truest representation they can of people's needs and behaviours, want to work alongside designers and bring decision-makers into research, and aim to ensure that research outcomes are communicated into organisations in a rich way that doesn't stifle development. That's not forgetting the need to work within time constraints and meet reasonable budgets which require some pragmatism.

Carving up 'the research space' (as many people do in promoting their own techniques) fails to recongnise what unites the different approaches within it: the drive to open up the real-world context of people who will use new products and services. It's this contextual understanding that provides so much more insight than that of the designer, technologist or planner working in isolation; or the too little, too late formality of traditional (usually focus group) market research.

Don Norman drops affordances

Finally, Don Norman has moved on from describing the cues in 'things' about how to use them (the flat surface of the chair that invites us to sit, the plate on a door that invites us to push) as 'affordances.' The term (originally used by psychologist, J.J. Gibson) was used widely by interaction designers; and, according to Norman, often used wrongly but it was hard to know when. Now, he's broadened the description of cues to 'social signifiers,' recognising it's not just things that cue our behaviour but the habits, behaviour and tracks of humans. For example, a crowded railway platform suggests the train we're rushing for has not yet arrived; a flag in the wind tells us the direction the wind is coming from (even if that wasn't the intention in displaying the flag). Norman is now calling these cues 'signifiers.' In his words:

"Social signifiers replace affordances, for they are broader and richer, allowing for accidental signifiers as well as deliberate ones, and even for items that signify through their absence, as the lack of crowds on a train platform."

His rationale for the change can be read on his web site and also in Interactions, November-December 2008, pp 18-19. If you haven't lived through the over use of 'affordance' this will just seem like a terminological storm in a teacup. For me, 'cue' is quite enough.

The businessification of design

Polemic by Ric Poynor on how design has been 'spun' as innovation. His bottom line is that business simply has to learn the value of good design and doesn't need it dressed up in different language to make it palatable. I'm not with him on every point, but there's a sense in which he's right about some of the hyperbole consultancies come up with in order to sell design services.

Good logo, bad logo

There has been much debate about the establishment of SOCA (Serious Organised Crime Agency), a British-style FBI. More flippantly Steven Bayley has a go at its logo in yesterday's Guardian, and snipes at a few other more established logos too.