The AIGA event in London in January reported on the Future of User-Centred Technology Design Mission to the US. We had three speakers, two from the mission, Rachel Jones from Instrata Limited and Dan Hill from BBC Radio and Music Interactive, and James Woudhuysen, Professor of Forecasting and Innovation at De Montfort University who responded. The event was held at the Design Council.

I’m impressed by the document itself, it is definately worth a read, but some of the assumptions and outputs reported by the speakers didn’t strike me as too joined up. Maybe its best not to speak about a report, just read it. A report has time for edit, whereas an off the cuff remarks may be made with less thought.

A few points, personal and biased judgements, of course. First up, why the West Coast US? Why not Scandanavia? Partcipatory design, the precursor to User-Centred Design, started in semi-socialist Sweden in the 70’s. If the objective of a mission is to look at new methods and process, I think the first question is ‘Where is the future happening?’, then, of course, you go there to find out. I think these guys missed the first question.

As I say, I do like the report so its hard to be too critical on detail, but I found the viewpoint given to a hundred user experience professionals that user-centred design techniques had ‘fallen away’ in the UK massively galling. What evidence for this, can we hear it? None, I think, past a belief by the speaker that Ethnography (hear the fanfare) is the one true way and you can’t call yourself a user experience professional if you ain’t been in house down and dirty with users. Now its not as if I don’t agree with this sentiment in principle, but the way it was expressed was discouraging and unnecessary, and actually slightly painful.

And what about hearing that an ‘online diary’ is a novel use of new UCD technology?!Unless I’m mistaken, wouldn’t that be a blog? You know, like we write in our millions?

Reading between the lines, it seemed to me that the US ain’t that far head, and like this country, more and more ground is being gained as we get more established. The report gives a more balanced perspective than this speaker.

I better liked Dans presentation. One aspect he discussed was the idea of the Translation Point. Again, not a new idea, but one that merits a name. I’ve personally been pursuing the idea of usability as a provider of concrete ideas to design for years now, so I’m pleased. But I’m not the only one of course. Bernt Schmitt in his excellent Customer Experience Management book describes the CEM field as one where analytic meets creative. I like the term though, and of course it presupposes the reverse … that design has to translate to usability too.

James Woudhuysen responsed with some interesting provocations. A very interesting and engaging piece busting up our cosy ideals. I can’t do them justice in this short piece, so heres a few bits and a gist.

First up, the customer experience field (my business) exists because of and feeds upon privilege. Filling in the white space of a designed experience with more more more is simply vulgar. The concentration on the detail of our lives orients us wholly to the market and denies innovation. Well, as someone who might be said to have sold out to the suits, I guess this is right. But what in its place, James?

Well, er, technology, creative, insight, messing … And this wild stuff rates higher than labelling our grocery bags nicely. Again, I’d do wild, and occasionally do, but I’d argue that good relevant detail of customer experience makes business and that has to be a key reason to do design. I mean, if it doesn’t sell its not good design, is it? But I agree this orientation to the market does warp User-Centred Design (UCD). It can make businesses very risk averse, and use UCD defensivly to test poor designs to bland destruction.

For myself, I see UCD as an proactive support to design. Used over its translation points, with designers and usability’ers speaking the same language, it is at its most powerful as a prototype-and-test tool. It is a shame our bean counter culture, and more conservative usability practitoners and patrons see usability as a stick to beat design with rather than part of the track to real innovation.

But, hang on … where did PCD come from?!

Share This