Design and Society

Investigating the future of user experience organisations

Over 3–4 April 2005 I am in Portland, OR, presenting to the CHI 2005 Development Consortium on ‘Meeting the Needs of the Multidisciplinary Professional and of the Multiple Professional Associations and Events of Importance to Them’. (I chaired the CHI 2003 Development Consortium on Mass Communication.) Other participants are: Jonathan Grudin, Microsoft Research; Keith Instone, IBM; Fred Sampson, IBM Silicon Valley Lab; Whitney Quesenbery, Whitney Interactive Design; Richard Anderson, Riander (chair); Beth Mazur; Nigel Bevan, Serco Usability Services; Dennis Galletta, University of Pittsburgh; Ping Zhang, Syracuse University; Fiona Fui-Hoon Nah, University of Nebraska-Lincoln; John Zapolski, AIGA; Dirk Knemeyer, Involution Studios; Nick Finck, Digital Web Magazine; Matteo Penzo, Consultechnology, Idearium; Arnold M. Lund, Microsoft Corporation; Lynn Strother, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society; Wendy A. Rogers, Georgia Institute of Technology; Barbara Helfer, Capital University; Ian MaClelland, Philips Applied Technologies; Annie Archbold, Centers for Disease Control; Paul Sherman, Best Software, University of Texas at Dallas; Michelle Berryman, IDSA; David Heller, Intralinks; and Joe Konstan, University of Minnesota. I will document my contribution in due course.

From to 5–7 April 2005 I stay on in Portland to report on CHI 2005. See photos from the Development Consortium and conference on the Flickr CHI2005 group.

The state and creativity

Discussing creative business, Patricia Hewitt shows again that she has more substance than most New Labour ministers (Too important to ignore, FT Creative Business, October 12, 2004 [paid sub required]). However, the barriers to creativity, and ultimately innovation, in UK industry won't be overcome by loan guarantees, Business Link advice, tax support for R&D, and protection for intellectual property. Britain under New Labour has bigger barriers to negotiate.

We are poor at identifying and solving problems in practical ways, and often blame ordinary people for the problems we do identify. Hence, we now tax car travel in London rather than inventing better transport systems, and treat SUV drivers as pariahs. We are unable to weigh up or debate risk. Hence, we regularly undermine the creative developments in science that Hewitt lauds. And we are poor at fomenting intelligent debate about creativity. The recent World Creative Forum in London didn't even attempt to define the character of the creative industries, as Hewitt does, or the nature of its connection to wealth creation. As to barriers to creativity and innovation the Forum was woefully blinkered.

Published, slightly edited, in FT Creative Business, 19 October 2004

In defence of the Design Museum

The objections of Terence Conran, prompted by James Dyson's resignation, to trends in the Design Museum's programme (Guardian, Letters, 'Concepts of design' October 5, 2004, in response to 'Dyson resigns seat at Design Museum' Jonathan Glancey, Guardian, September 28, 2004) are quite understandable and correct. However, the Design Museum is being pushed in its current direction by forces largely beyond the control of its director, Alice Rawsthorn. It hasn't the funds to originate many exhibitions. Under New Labour, museum policy and funding has moved towards promoting accessibility and social inclusion, measured in visitor numbers over the presentation of innovative and challenging exhibitions.

And, more broadly, the concepts of humanism, optimism, lateral thinking, and grand planning that characterised Dyson's heroes – Brunel and Bucky Fuller – are largely absent from political and media debates. Just witness the lack of credit given to the people who brought us Concord, Pendolino trains, the Channel Tunnel or the Dome. In this climate it is harder to present design in its true complexity and diversity – a diversity which won't always relate directly to visitors' experiences. Dyson is rightly frustrated, but little blame can be laid at Rawsthorn's door.

Published, in edited form, in the Guardian, Letters 'Design must be more than machines', 8 October 2004

Published in full (though with modifications from the above letter) in the Observer, Letters, 10 October 2004

See also Deyan Sudjic's in depth analysis in the Observer, 'How a flower arrangement caused fear and loathing' October 3, 2004

Business fawns on the socially-challenged

'Cult Brands' [paid subscription required], the BusinessWeek/Interbrand annual ranking of the world's most valuable brands was published on 9 August 2004.

The rise of brands appears to be in direct proportion to the waning of major social and political movements. (The one issue movements that have also risen in their place are as much about branding and personal identity as they are about effecting change.) It is pretty sad when an Ikea shopper who "writes about everything from the 12 cents ice cream cones in the store cafeterias" is celebrated in the context of future of business.

Where has the concept of leadership gone in the corporate world, exemplified by companies investing in new products and services they believed would be the future, rather than pathetically tailing consumers?

I used to resent the Cupertino-centric arrogance of Apple Computer. Today, by comparison, it feels like a breath of fresh air. And Apple still manages to innovate and create new markets for itself.

Published (somewhat shortened) as a letter in International -- Readers Report on 6 September 2004 [paid subscription required]

Too much for who?

I recently re-read a letter I wrote to Blueprint magazine (published in the December 1997 issue). The points on social constraint and the tendency to ignore efficient use of the key commodity labour time are as relevant today.

Rick Poynor (‘When too much is too much’. Blueprint, October 1997) argues that in Britain we (as consumers) are exposed to ‘too much stuff’, that new design work simply contributes to ‘the gigantic over-production of things’, that we allow our desire for new gizmos to over-ride our knowledge that we really don’t need them.

Poynor’s example of an American retro shop in the gentrified Fulham Road can hardly be taken to be typical of Britain, let alone the rest of the world. If there really is an ‘over-production of things’ most people in Britain, and the majority of the rest of the world, are certainly not getting much of a call on them.

Anyway, what is wrong with choice in what we buy? Why should we return to the ‘Any colour as long as it’s black’ era of consumption? (In fact when Henry Ford offered this ‘option’ he was bringing a real choice to ordinary Americans - that of personal transportation.)

Poynor does identify a real problem in innovation, where most new products are gratuitous extensions of a range or a brand, or upgrades whose features are inadequately explained to the customer. His call for a ‘profound shift towards socially useful design’ is laudable, and he his rightly dubious about New Labour’s ability to create the conditions for this (its concept of design being too shallow and altogether too parochial for the job).

However Poynor’s implication that we should consume less is likely to reinforce New Labour’s real agenda of social constraint. Innovative products such as Trevor Baylis’s wind-up radio have been sold on their undoubted value to under-developed countries, but in the gospel according to Blair don’t be surprised to find yourself berated for continuing to use batteries when you could have chosen clockwork.

Neither are the over-consumption theories Poynor rolls out new; before the apparently radical theories of Papanek he cites we had Packard’s ‘consumption for consumption’s sake’. These expressions of disillusion with modern industrial society overlooked the most basic commodity in our society: our working time. What we would really like to see is modern society unrestrained enough to innovate, and use innovations effectively, leaving us free to enjoy the fruits of our labour - upgrades and all.

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]

Does sustainability stifle innovation?

Green Futures invited myself and Rob Webb of XCO2 to discuss whether sustainability spurs the creation of good design - or stifles it. The debate is published as an 'Exchange of Fire'.

Design by or for the people?

My 'Second sight' column in the Guardian’s Online section has been published. It argues that although user-centred design is now widely accepted the emphasis on its usability component limits innovation. I contend that designers should trust their skills and design for what people deserve, not what consumer research tells us they need, or usability tells us they are capable of. I have published a longer version of the piece entitled 'Design by or for the people?' on my site. This version is more explanatory and more mediated than it is possible to be within the 500 word Guardian limit.

The impact of UK graphic design on the Web

I am writing a chapter on the impact of graphic design on design for the Web. It will appear in a book, edited by Rick Poynor and published by Laurence King, that will accompany an exhibition opening at the Barbican (London) in September 2004. The exhibition will explore recent developments in British graphic design, focusing on the smaller independent studios and teams that are credited with producing the most creative, innovative and highly regarded design work over the past four decades.

I will look at a number of themes including: the influence of graphic design aesthetics and typography, the transition (and failure to transition) of designers and design companies, and the impact of graphic design process and client disposition. It will also look at where in future Web design (and interaction design more broadly) will need to draw from graphic design.

I will also focus on key studios working in this area:

• From the early days: Webmedia, Obsolete, Hard Media, Wicked Web, CHBi, Syzygy
• Latterly: Brann Interactive, Abel & Baker, Decoda, the Interactive Bureau, Arehaus, IDU, Razorfish, Oven Digital
• Current: Lateral, Poke, Less Rain, Re-collective, AKQA, Rufus Leonard, Fortune Cookie, Edwards Churcher, Good Technology, I-D Media, Kleber, Moonfish, Object1, the OTHER media, 64k, Oyster Partners, Artificial Environments, Boag Associates, Grundy & Northedge, Rom and Son, Tomato Interactive

I would value suggestions of ideas, trends and influences, key studios, and important events in the timeline.

Intellectual complacency

In Conference madness (Eye no. 49 vol. 12, Autumn 2003) -- to which I contributed -- Alice Twemlow correctly points out how few substantial disputes there are at design conferences, but is wrong to imply that the issues discussed today are uncontested. Rather, as conferences have addressed more social and political issues it has become clear how little diversity there is in the views presented, and thus how little scope there is for dispute. And where there is a diversity of views, session moderators tend to be unable to draw them out into a meaningful debate.

Organisers of design events seem to be quite complacent and blinkered when it comes to programming. Discussions around their current issues -- the environment, sustainability, social equality, globalisation, and the power of corporations -- have hardly been resolved in the real world. If they can't create an informed and rigorous debate about them in designland we will stagnate intellectually. In addition, we won't be taken seriously by the people beyond our realm who many event organisers are so keen to influence.

I have always sought to present a real diversity of views in events I have programmed. Even if I disagree profoundly with a particular point-of-view I will invite someone representing it to take part, if their arguments have intellectual merit. Only by subjecting ideas to presentation and debate can develop our views on them. These debates may lead to us changing our minds, or we may come to a better understanding our existing beliefs. In contrast most issue-based design events start from a canon of ideas held by the design establishment and neither challenges nor strengthen them. We owe it to ourselves -- and to future generations of designers -- to do better.

Published as a letter in Eye magazine (UK), Spring 2004