« June 2005 | Main | September 2005 »

3 posts from July 2005

Wednesday, 27 July 2005

Don Norman's essay, Human-Centered Design Considered Harmful, as published in the July-August, 2005 issue of ACM's Interactions.

Human-Centered Design has become such a dominant theme in design that it is now accepted by interface and application designers automatically, without thought, let alone criticism. That’s a dangerous state — when things are treated as accepted wisdom. The purpose of this essay is to provoke thought, discussion, and reconsideration of some of the fundamental principles of Human-Centered Design. These principles, I suggest, can be helpful, misleading, or wrong. At times, they might even be harmful. Activity-Centered Design is superior.

One basic philosophy of HCD is to listen to users, to take their complaints and critiques seriously. Yes, listening to customers is always wise, but acceding to their requests can lead to overly complex designs. Several major software companies, proud of their human-centered philosophy, suffer from this problem. Their software gets more complex and less understandable with each revision. Activity-Centered philosophy tends to guard against this error because the focus is upon the Activity, not the Human. As a result, there is a cohesive, well-articulated design model. If a user suggestion fails to fit within this design model, it should be discarded. Alas, all too many companies, proud of listening to their users, would put it in.

Here, what is needed is a strong, authoritative designer who can examine the suggestions and evaluate them in terms of the requirements of the activity. When necessary, it is essential to be able to ignore the requests. This is the goal to cohesion and understandability. Paradoxically, the best way to satisfy users is sometimes to ignore them.

Note that this philosophy applies in the service domain as well. Thus, Southwest Airlines has been successful despite the fact that it ignores the two most popular complaints of its passengers: provide reserved seating and inter-airline baggage transfer. Southwest decided that its major strategic advantage was inexpensive, reliable transportation, and this required a speedy turn-around time at each destination. Passengers complain, but they still prefer the airline.

Sometimes what is needed is a design dictator who says, “Ignore what users say: I know what’s best for them.” The case of Apple Computer is illustrative. Apple’s products have long been admired for ease of use. Nonetheless, Apple replaced its well known, well-respected human interface design team with a single, authoritative (dictatorial) leader. Did usability suffer? On the contrary: its new products are considered prototypes of great design.

The “listen to your users” produces incoherent designs. The “ignore your users” can produce horror stories, unless the person in charge has a clear vision for the product, what I have called the “Conceptual Model.” The person in charge must follow that vision and not be afraid to ignore findings. Yes, listen to customers, but don’t always do what they say.

Human-Centered Design does guarantee good products. It can lead to clear improvements of bad ones. Moreover, good Human-Centered Design will avoid failures. It will ensure that products do work, that people can use them. But is good design the goal? Many of us wish for great design. Great design, I contend, comes from breaking the rules, by ignoring the generally accepted practices, by pushing forward with a clear concept of the end result, no matter what. This ego-centric, vision-directed design results in both great successes and great failures. If you want great rather than good, this is what you must do.

Tuesday, 19 July 2005

CSS - File Organization + More...

Two great CSS articles in the recent issue of Digital Web Magazine:

Links within the first article led me to two more great articles:

Thursday, 07 July 2005

Thackara's Design Principles

John Thackara, in his keynote speech at CHI2000, unveiled his "Articles of Association Between Design, Technology, and the People Formerly Known as Users."

Article 1:
We cherish the fact that people are innately curious, playful, and creative. We therefore suspect that technology is not going to go away: it's too much fun.

Article 2:
We will deliver value to people - not deliver people to systems. We will give priority to human agency, and will not treat humans as a 'factor' in some bigger picture.

Article 3:
We will not presume to design your experiences for you - but we will do so with you, if asked.

Article 4:
We do not believe in 'idiot-proof' technology - because we are not idiots, and neither are you. We will use language with care, and will search for less patronising words than 'user' and 'consumer'.

Article 5:
We will focus on services, not on things. We will not flood the world with pointless devices.

Article 6:
We believe that 'content' is something you do - not something you are given.

Article 7:
We will consider material end energy flows in all the systems we design. We will think about the consequences of technology before we act, not after.

Article 8:
We will not pretend things are simple, when they are complex. We value the fact that by acting inside a system, you will probably improve it.

Article 9:
We believe that place matters, and we will look after it.

Article 10:
We believe that speed and time matter, too - but that sometimes you need more, and sometimes you need less. We will not fill up all time with content.

My Photo

My Photos

  • www.flickr.com
    carriejeberhardt's items Go to carriejeberhardt's photostream

More Places to Find Me

Flickr LinkedIn Other... Twitter

My Tribe

  • Interaction Design Association

    Interaction Design Association


Powered by TypePad Member since 07/2003