Jan 24, 2010
My Thoughts on “Thoughts on Thoughts on Interaction Design”
J. Ambrose Little just posted recently about reading Jon Kolko’s Thoughts on Interaction Design. While I am new to this whole design thing, I have previously posted about my uneasiness with the claim that we design behavior.
In Little’s post he expounds on the idea much better than I have:
It also seems to me that speaking of design as a shaper of behavior or rhetoric puts the emphasis on the wrong place for most practical industrial or interaction design work. I guess I align more with Christopher Alexander’s approach in Notes on the Synthesis of Form and A Timeless Way of Building–that what we design should fit, not so much change or shape, the way people already behave or want to behave, and it should only be rhetorical if put to ends that align with the good of those being designed for.
Thank you J. Ambrose Little. People come first. Our values as designers will undoubtedly manifest themselves in our work, but we design things, not behavior. We can only design for behavior. Now I gotta go read Jon’s book.
Hey Chad,
Thanks for the pointers to the article, hadn’t read it yet. Two things pop out at me on this issue.
First is locus of control. The user is always in control, they can turn off the device, walk out of the experience or click to a new website. They bring their own feelings, mood, and memories to a design. This means that we can only architect experiences or (as the title of my blog implies) we can only design for experience (the holisitic way of looking at things including emotions and so many other factors). I think we both agree with this notion.
Persuasive technology. BJ Fogg has written a lot about this and there are conferences on this sub-field even. There is a lot to say about this, but you seem to be saying that we shouldn’t try to change people’s behavior. I agree with the sentiment that we shouldn’t force users to learn some kind of technical metaphor so they can function. I.e. don’t force the user to conform to the system, put people first. There are situations however where designing to persuade, and change behavior is totally OK. When the person wants it, like when you have a product or service that is made to enable and help the person change something they want. (like a lot of things that help people reach fitness goals for example). Also you DO have to sell your site/service/product and to do that you’re going to make it credible and professional and lots of other things that will persuade the person and change their mind. I think that’s ok too. I don’t think you’ll really disagree with this, but I’d be interested to hear your thoughts.
Aaron,
I agree with you about changing behaviors that people want to change. Thank you for pointing that out. Often in my haste to get my thoughts out, I don’t take the time to be more clear about what I mean and don’t mean.
I would call what you said “designing to enable a change in behavior” rather than “designing behavior.” I am all for designs that enable or empower people to pursue the things they want out of life. I just feel that if designers are being taught that they are “designers of behavior,” even if that may be true when understood in certain contexts, that kind of mantra is problematic.
A naive or (shudder) egotistical designer might take up that mantle and become blind to the true nature of designing for people. At worst this can lead to what Nelson and Stolterman refer to as “The Evil of Design.” At best this kind of designer will be less successful because they fail to respect the fact that, like you said, people can always choose not to use the design or to reappropriate it.
I guess my main beef with “it is the designers job to design behavior” is the same beef I have with calling people “users,” calling all evaluations of designs “usability testing,” and every job title remotely related to design “designers.” Words represent and perpetuate ideas. They are powerful, and even more powerful when taken out of context – which always happens. “Designing behavior” just smacks a bit of the Empire.