Smoke & Mirrors

Monday, April 21, 2008 3:59

A strongly worded article that said what needed to be said about science, design and research. I think a lot of what has shared made a lot of sense, being somewhat of a web programmer and designer myself. Each part of the article spoke to me in different ways.

Part 1: Design vs. Science

A good, sweeping introduction to give a taste of what is to come, but what struck me was, “...the array of seemingly-scientific tools available to us ... is sometimes seen as a means to avoid doing our real job: being expert designers who draw on deep experience and good instincts.”

Coming from a more scientific, computing background, designing websites used to be a functional and scientific thing to me. It was all about efficiency and just copying whatever has been done before and has seemingly worked. Even when it comes to testing, I always seem to be satisfied just so long as everything “worked”. Essentially, I am all about objectivity. The terms “deep experience” and “good instincts” sounds very subjective to me, but as I designed more and went through this module, subjectivity is just as important to consider, and might perhaps make all the difference between an excellent website, and a useable website.

Part 2: Research as a Design Tool

The whole example of eyetracking was an amusing story. I think the essence of this part was just that one result of a scientific research could lead to multiple conclusions if not done or interpreted properly. Information in the wrong hands is not useless, it is misleading and disastrous. Yet, it could be extremely useful. There is then, that very fine line as to what research data tells us at face value, and what research data truly means. It is a blight that plagues even surveys and lab experiments. The key lesson drawn would therefore be, to be cautious and creative in design research, not flippant and naïve.

Part 3: Research as a Political Tool

Very useful information for UI designers. It simply states that research helps to justify seemingly obvious flaws to stakeholders, who most of time do not have sound design principles themselves. Practical advice, yet unavoidable.

“not that user research is the foundation of good design, but rather that user research can (among other things) help explain and justify good design decisions to people without deep design skills or instincts”

Unfortunately, I think the next problem would then be, if the stakeholders do not have deep design skills or instincts, quite likely, neither will the users or the testers. As with all surveys and experiments, the choice of subjects (can’t think of any more unscientific term to use) is extremely important. I mean, if a website had an obvious flaw, say in the layout of links, users might also not question that, but just take it that it is normal and live with it.

Part 4: Research as Bullshit

I’ve seen the IDEO video, and it did look too perfect to be true. However, I also know that for every one “successful” invention, there have been tons of failures.

“Real projects are messy and imperfect. I suspect the same is true at IDEO ... their use of research helps the designers make decisions, but ... their designers are the foundation of their design process.”

It’s about the people, the talent, the skill. Supposed to make designers feel special I guess. It works.

Part 5: Non-Scientific Research Isn’t a Bad Thing

“... user research for the Web should delve into the qualitative aspects of design to understand how and why people respond to what has been created, and, more importantly, how to apply that insight to future work.”

Indeed. We’re not overly concerned with the “how” now, but with the “why”. It has been pretty much, the main question trained to ask this entire course – WHY. Always subjective, always different, therefore always interesting and exciting. Routine is boring but constant change also frustrates. However, like what the article writes, even “wrong” user feedback is valuable and gives insight into what users really see and why.

The most lasting quote from the entire article to me was, “The user is never wrong because experience is experience, not fact.”

All in all, the article seems to exalt the importance of good, fundamental design principles mixed with a little bit of common sense, wisdom and experience. All those can never be replaced by quantitative, scientific design research. Leo Tolstoy, in “What is Art?” also argued about the meaning of art, beauty and aesthetics. He questioned if art had been reduced to just science, and the true meaning and skill behind it had been lost just to please the aristocrats and to earn the money. In this age of mechanical reproduction, the problem seemed to have heightened, and it is said everyone can be an artist. If design were to be made simply into science – quantifiable, repeatable, and predictable – then truly, everyone can be a designer. We’ll just all have things that look and work the same.

Back to Homepage

Comments

Leave A Comment