To get things started, I shall first reflect on the style of writing for this editorial. I personally find it clear-cut and forthright but the tone that the writer expressed was somewhat belligerent, and was surprised that it was done rather overtly. It gave me an inkling that it was analogous to that written from the perspective of an inspiring designer whose ideas was hindered in some ways by scientific research, and possibly written out of frustration? It’s a good effort though, to have an honest and forthright judgment put forth, for fellow designers to critique.
A lot of users had actually put forth their opinions, some supportive, some objective, and that probably recapitulate on why UX till now is still a grey area; not defined as yet, and possibly will never get defined until a commonplace conformity is reached amongst fellow designers. As the subjectivity in the article’s chatterbox continues, I guess I’m also just like the peers, only that I’m commenting on my own blog instead.
In the following reflections, I’m going to reflect on the various sections, not to cover entirely but to share the sentiments evoked.
First up, Design vs. Science. Even before reading this section, I already noticed the image that stood solitarily on the webpage. I presume there must be some hidden connotations for its presence; as to why the writer would display this image and not elaborating on it. I personally felt that the writer is trying to articulate something, probably from his designer’s perspective? Some interpretations that occurred to me (not entirely sure though):
- Scientific research is not reflective of the reality of good designs.
- The writer’s sentiment is not mirrored back by (probably) his higher design heads (he’s not seeing himself).
- Emptiness in mirror probably foretells he’s not seeing a clear future, should things continue to go the scientific way.
- Scientific quantitative research at present, not reflective of what designers would ideally hope for (their works/career advancement are hindered in some ways by the research methodologies).
It is evident that the writer is perceptibly critical of scientific user research forming the basis of design process. I felt that while scientific user research might be able to supplement, it could not, and should not substitute pure inspiration and commonsensicality. He has a point too; we’re developing a product, as emphasized, based on USER research. I felt, in the field of design and aesthetics, its apparent that users are subjective. Just take a step back, and observe how people define ‘attractiveness’, ‘cute’ or even ’sexy’ (even fat people might seem sexy to some). There’s no standard benchmarks established, and perhaps never will. As such, I question, how would scientific research be able to commonalize a subjective field like design? ‘Force-fitting’ scientific quantitative design research might just be equivalent to designers walking on thin ice. Users’ opinions should be the prime focus.
As the writer goes on to talk about Design as Research tool, it seems to me that he is beginning to feel perturbed. His citation of eye-tracking as nonsensical seems substantial, as it might be true that people are mis-interpreting the results and not making use of basic common sense. That’s essentially true. I felt when products are released, they might seem to be trying to hard to present their product as a good product. As such, force-fitting by misleading results might be inevitable. People might just be twisting facts, making people believe the way the want it to be, or probably to defend or even extend their product’s effectiveness blindly.
While he quoted there were misinterpretations in scientific research. I’m not sure how true it is, that scientific researches got misinterpreted. But I do feel that in the example quoted, eye-tracking is really inadequate in eliciting user’s thoughts. It could have gone hand in hand, but alone, it seemed derisory. It does seem to be inapt to comprehend what the user’s vision was, as well as why they are looking at it. I’m wondering why couldn’t they go the easier way, how about just ASKing the users right away, by promting users to Think Aloud? You would have gotten the answer, and probably not necessitate the need to come out with conclusion that’s too scientific or generalized.
The section on Design as Politics Tool was indeed very enlightening. Reflecting on a similar incident that I had experienced, this was indeed something factual. Back then, I was assigned the role of content developer in a game development project. However, my team leader did not see eye to eye with my designs and was insistent in revamping the entire graphics towards another style. While we re-iterate the fact that users are satisfied with the existing graphics, he turned a deaf ear towards our protests. Being a greenhorn in design, I was unable to repeal the decision of the more experienced team leader. It was till the day of presentation, when evaluators was skeptical towards the sketchy style of graphics that he adopted, where they queried if the designs was well-received by the users? As the leader did not conduct any user acceptance assessments, he was speechless. The evaluators then stipulated the recall of the previous designs, which was found to be more acceptable to the users.
Apparently, my team leader only accepted his demise only when the ultimate ‘voice’ had spoken – the users. While I’m not saying my designs are more superior, I felt that we can forsee this coming and we need not be experts to foresee this. Politics is a potential hindrance to design excellence; a designer or company will most probably not want to relinquish, given the effort they had put in and their belief in that their artwork is indomitable. The strong willpower might be helpful for good designs but for bad designs, it’s just a matter of time when the higher authorities (users) cast doubts on your work, that you eventually get blasted and conclusively realize you’re heading in the wrong direction. Well, just my two cents worth.
Genuine Political Dispute: My Cartoony Menu (L) vs. His Sketchy Main (R)
In the critiques for the last two parts, the essence is really on quantitative vs. qualitative research for designs. I personally feel that qualitative approaches are the way to go for design researches. Design is something that we really can’t quantify. I especially appreciated the last quote about Design as Art. Either you like it, or you don’t. Subjectivity is an issue, but that’s part and parcel of designs. Being still a greenhorn in design and having the benefit of doubt, I felt design is something that’s instinctive, intuitive and straightforward. It’s something that is artistic, invaluable and perhaps un-quantifiable.
Just for ponder, do you actually fish out your calculator/charting programs to perform a quantitative measurement of design appropriateness when you’re viewing an exhibition of art works?
Furthermore, I couldn’t agree more on the part that justifies Design is Art. I guess a simple analogy would do the trick: why are the Interactive Design modules and User Experience module centering in FASS?
Well, “Design”, “Art”, “Faculty of Arts”? You see the link, don’t you?
Conclusion
Ultimately, I felt that the entire article is trying to elucidate an important thrust: the User-Centric approach. The reason why quantitative is not as appropriate is probably due to the nature of Design. In design, users are central; not numerical figures or statistics. User centric design and techniques (as well as designer innate instincts: common sense) are seen as the idyllic approach to design strategies and not scientific evaluations or methodologies. I couldn’t agree more. We are designing for users, hence, we should deliver what users really wanted, not based on what lab assistants envisaged. And that’s what user experience is all about, creating experience that ensemble and goes well with users, not the other way round. Only when the targeted users are satisfied and comfortable, that design is at its best.
Moreover, I would agree that, employing better designers (or grooming) is much more favorable than splurging on new techniques that might not work out after all. Design, ultimately is something that is really innate, that we can only learn from hands-on experiences. (You can’t ‘memorize’ design, even lecturers can only teach theories and frameworks, but the application of such is entirely novel, crafted by you).
Things might get conjured up, with all the hype for scientific affinities with design. It might work out in future though, if designers are to take up scientific qualifications. 
Until then, designers would probably have to play ‘mind games’, with whoever it might concern. With this, I chanced upon a design quote that seems adequate in summing up my reflections on this article.
“Ultimately, Interactive Design [is] a seamless blend of graphic arts, technology, and psychology.”
- Brad Wieners, 2002 (Inspired by Ed Schlossberg – ESI Design Pioneer)
