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.
31/ I’ve written about this bias much more extensively in another post. The core idea is that the designers care about their taste and worldview much more than the customers’. It's VERY HARD to empathize with users who aren't like YOU. https://t.co/blEp9D8P8G
— Paras Chopra (@paraschopra) April 27, 2018
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 :-).
Thanks, David — it's v informative.
— John Maeda (@johnmaeda) June 10, 2018
