David Locke sent me a link to this Tweet Thread about “good design” vs “bad design” and so forth. I enjoyed reading it as it both challenges and reinforces some biases as you go through it all.
So I agree with some of the author’s points, but not all of them. Especially his reference to a “mom’s test” which pre-assumes that someone’s mom out there isn’t a CEO or has a few PhDs under their belt.
But these days I do believe that a classical designer approach is wrong on its own, just as much as a computational design approach is wrong on its own. And a business design (closer to “product”) approach is wrong on its own too. It requires all approaches in balance with each other.
In the recent past, I questioned whether classical design-driven approaches to beauty or decoration were relevant, but mainly in the context where it was the only design approach being used. I’ve also noted that when a purely UX-style approach is taken, it suffers from missing an emotional soul that runs through its well-minded, rationalistic point-of-view. In addition, when it’s all run with the sole intent of making money, then another darkness sets in whereby you can easily start design a Las Vegas casino-equivalent where the exits aren’t clearly marked for your customer/”prey.” Lastly, without considering engineering limitations or risk/reward on a big budget bet, that can take you down the road to nowhere as well as a great design that will never get built.
My conclusion? Having a diverse set of perspectives means you’re less likely to end up with a product that: 1/ nobody needs, 2/ nobody wants, 3/ nobody can afford. I work to remain open and keep hearing different perspectives as much as possible. And for that I, I have David to thank this morning :-).