Design and Society

Putting the interests of real people first

I was intrigued by Richard Eisermann's call to use design methods in areas beyond the typical scope of design practice ('Down to earth', Design Week, 22 January 2004 [paid for subscription required]), and this is an initiative that is ripe for greater investigation.

Considering how sustainability might best be promoted, Eisermann argues that we should "lock intellectual arms to solve these new, complex problems". His argument would be more convincing if in the design world we had ever had an honest and informed debate about sustainability. In reality, we uncritically adopted the concept without ever intellectually critiquing it.

In addition, there is a conflict between the concept of sustainability and the philosophy of user- or human-centred design to which Eisermann also alludes. He notes that to achieve the social goal of sustainability designers will need to "persuade consumers to, in some cases, rescind their attachment to ownership" in favour of services. This approach sounds more like social engineering than human-centred design, and is likely to leave our fellow citizens short-changed. Let's put the interests of real people, not the intangible notion of the environment, back at the centre of design thinking and practice.

Published in Design Week magazine letters (UK), 05/02/04 [subscriber access only]

Who are we to judge?

The recent (and excellent) Designs & Destinations conference (reported in Design Week’s News Analysis, 10 July [subscription required]) highlighted a new and worrying trend in designland. In his presentation Professor David Begg, chair of the Commission for Integrated Transport, encouraged the audience to laugh at examples of people who drove their car short distances to the gym, or walked their dog while driving. Although his presentation was well received by many, it is still important to ask what right designers have to judge how people choose to live their lives.

In the design process people’s needs and desires are a given, along with the client’s objectives, and material and other project constraints. Good design solutions should satisfy these goals and limitations. If designers instead believe that their goal is to change people’s behaviour they move from being designers to being social engineers, squandering the skills they have to offer society. The philosophy of user-centred design in transportation advocated by other presenters at the conference will be stillborn if Professor Begg’s line of thinking is pursued.

Where's the Big Idea?

‘First Things First 2000’ (Eye, Autumn 1999) makes an important point, that design talent is seldom put to the most useful social ends, but fails to shed light on the causes of this phenomenon or how we might address it.

The manifesto tells us that we are "manufacturing demand for things that are inessential at best". On what basis do we as designers judge what is essential to others? Who are these cretins that cannot judge the value of products for themselves, or separate their value from the way they are presented? And what is wrong with a but of seduction by design anyway? I rather enjoy those few minutes of escapism between episodes of ‘Seinfeld’, and some of the NatWest ads being aired at present are really rather good, unlike the bank.

At one level I can understand where ‘First Things First’ is coming from. It feels like we are a long way from the uplifting design of yester year. The state corporatist-sponsored designs for the London Underground; the Weimar-inspired Bauhaus; the state socialist-funded work during the Second World War and after; or the anti militarist-fuelled campaigns of the Sixties. But isn’t this the point? We live in a society without a vision to cohere it and it should be no wonder that people identify more with brands (the surface of things) than any big ideas. In our post-ideological age trust (particularly of politicians) is in short supply and brands are one of the few things that appear reliable.

And this is what is missing from ‘First Things First’: the Big Idea that might explain, at least a bit, how we got here and how we might get somewhere worth going. This is not a new problem. Ken Garland, speaking about the original ‘First Things First’ stated: "We do not advocate the abolition of high pressure consumer advertising… this is not feasible." Over a third of a century many things have moved on but the ‘First Things First’ camp is no closer to suggesting the explanations for, or answers to, the problem it identified.

If the signatories of ‘First Things First 2000’ want a worthy problem to address they could turn some of their energies to our newest medium for promoting ‘commercial culture’: the Internet. However it is not even mentioned in the manifesto and the majority of signatories have paid little attention to shaping this medium, though their input would be invaluable. Its mature form and uses will be determined by other forces and our complaints at that point will sound rather hollow.

Published in Eye magazine, Letters