User led, centered or focused?

All designers talk about the need to understand users as part of the design process...indeed we often talk about "putting users at the heart of everything we do".  But there is a clear distinction between being led by users (and what they think they want) and understanding what they need and developing new solutions around this.

There is a view amongst some in the design community that talking to users doesn't deliver innovation or new solutions.  So what is the role of the user in the design process and should they be leading us or should we be focused on them?

There is a clear difference in the outcomes that should be expected from these two directions.  We frequently get asked to talk to users about "what they want".  This is often prompted by the desire to have them involved and placating them around any change.  "What they want" tends to generate wish lists which are about fixing the existing problems and usually result in a solution that is pretty similar to the current situation.  We'd agree that it doesn't deliver the leap forward in how things are done or the innovative change that clients are often seeking at a strategic level.

This is thinking about the now is a natural behaviour for users and it has its place in certain projects.  But there is a trueism in the old Henry Ford quote about if he had asked users what they want, they would have asked for faster horses (although we gather there is not much evidence he ever actually said this!).

From our perspective, the approach to user centred design is not asking people what they want but is in discovering the underlying need in a more abstract sense and using that to creatively find new solutions.  This still requires us to do all the good things around talking to users and observing behaviours.  But it then needs the expertise to stand back from what you've heard, analyse the information and the problem, understand the current goals and arrive at new insights.

This expertise has to be implemented carefully and the challenge for the design team is to remove the ego-centric point of view that we all naturally hold.  The capture of this broad data and evidence are useful in getting a picture of the diverse needs of the range of different users and the design team needs to hold onto this.

At some point in a user centred design approach, one does need to interact with the user community and get some feedback.  Is the new solution usable or meeting the underlying need?  Prototyping is almost always the best approach to this.

We see the role of the designer as providing two distinct roles - firstly as the expert in undertaking the wider task analysis and understanding the diverse needs of the range of users.  The second is as the filter for the feedback coming from users, using their skills to stand back and see the bigger, forward thinking picture.

We have to accept that innovation if often a punt into the unknown.  We have to try things and see if they meet the need and see if they stick.

But user centered design should not be simply user led.  Asking users what they want is never enough.  Not if you want to develop solutions that are useful, usable and provide the holistic experience that users need.  

The role of choice in influencing behaviour

In designing physical spaces like stations, airports, hospitals and stadia we are always interested in how we can get people to go where we want them to. We need them to know where they are going, to have their ticket ready, etc. But the fact is we know, as human factors experts, that it is difficult to stop people doing what they want to do.

So we were interested in this article looking at why apps designed to change behaviour failed to do so: http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/13/why-behavior-change-apps-fail-to-change-behavior/

Perhaps there are a number of challenges.  Clearly we need to avoid removing choice and pushing people in a certain direction.  We've all had wayfinding experiences where we "just want to get over there" but there is a barrier in the way.  We need to make use of existing behaviours rather than trying to impose new ones.  We need to really understand what people want and make sure we design to meet those needs ahead of the needs of the owner or operator - they will probably find their needs are met too!

Feelings over function?

As user-centered designers, we value the functionality of something highly: it has to deliver on being useful and understandable.  We know that we need also to value the aesthetic and its contribution to our feelings of well-being.  But perhaps sometimes it is harder to tap into those other little parts of the experience of using a product or moving through an environment.

On the BBC website this week there is a piece about a new wine cork that screws into the bottle.  Experts tell us that the modern screw cap is the best way to keep our wine tasting at its best for when we open it.  But as drinkers we miss the action of opening a bottle with an old fashioned cork - the squeaking sound followed by the satisfying pop.   As the BBC article points out, this triggers positive associations in our mind that go far beyond the utility of opening a bottle and having a drink.

The world that CCD works in is more about the design of work spaces and public environments.  The question for us is how do we capture these little moments in the user experience and keep them? A challenge!

Are the older generation getting tech-savvy?

Thought provoking article on the BBC website on the tech needs of older people: www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20529991

It stems from work done at the Cambridge Design Centre, part of Cambridge University, looking at products and how older people use them.  It's clearly an important topic with the demographic shift to an aging population.

The video really highlights the problems designers have in seeing the world through the eyes of others. What to many younger users would be an intuitive interaction - touch and swipe - are not to older people who have a totally different mental model and a more analogue paradigm of usage.

It also demonstrates the difficulties for designers to really understand some of the physical constraints older people have.  Being able to experience this with modified glasses or adaptive aids that constraint joint movement etc can be great - our recent work with Guide Dogs for the Blind went through similar efforts with our team going on blindfolded walks with guide dogs and we also discovered some augmented reality apps that show you a view of the world with various visual impairments.

All really interesting and important issues especially when you look at increasing adoption of technology by older users in order to take advantage of some of the opportunities for things like reducing loneliness.

A virtual day in court - design thinking

For an insight into how design thinking and in particular, the importance of considering the human factor in design, have a read of this report from the RSA in to the use of video conferencing technology in courts. It makes the point that the technological solution is there but most people have recognised that just implementing a technology solution will fail as there are a number of human issues related to its use that must be considered. There is recognition that the solution must "design every aspect" of the wider system and not just the kit. 

The report study highlights some really interesting human issues such as perceptions around cost-cutting measures that ignore any benefit and a load of issues around being face-to-face and reading the faces of people. It also highlights the role of design thinking in engaging with all stakeholders not just those that might seem more important. In this case it would be a grave mistake to not understand the perspective of defendants and witnesses and instead focus on the needs of judges and lawyers.

 There is a really nice description of how designers, using knowledge of people and behaviour, can be so helpful in the design of services like this in delivering insight into the experience of different "users" and using methods like story boarding a "day in the life" to get all parties to see the issues.
A Virtual Day in Court

People Shaped Innovation

A good friend of CCD, Matt Marsh from Firsthand Experience, gave this talk to a TEDx event recently and we wanted to share it.



Its an interesting discussion about innovation and the early insight of human-centered approaches.  Matt's point about understanding people's needs and wants as an early part of the design process is really interesting.  He highlights a number of failures that might have been prevented with a more user-led process...amazing that some of them got through even though user-centered approaches are often now used in the design process.

The only question back to Matt is how you push and shape needs through innovation by creating things that people didn't know they want until they use it and adapt it.  Do we need to have the failures to find the successes?

Perhaps it is a different mind set that is needed in that early part of the process...abstracting to understand goals and needs and not moving to solutions as designers are often drawn towards.

Where do good ideas come from?

Interesting little piece from the BBC interviewing Steven Johnson on his book "Where good ideas come from".

We also like the cartoon scribing at the start from Cognitive Media, who we've used in some of our internal meetings.

The Value of Mock-ups in the Design Process

We have always believed in the value of the full-scale mock-up trial in the design process. In our toolkit of design methodologies it offers an un-rivaled way of getting end users & other stakeholders involved. It allows them to visual and spatially see the design in a way that many struggle to with drawings: for example, it is often difficult to visualise the size of a space or the distance between objects. It allows them to interact with the design in real-time: when we design a control room for example, they can pick up a desk and move it; if we want to change the desk we can re-shape it if we've used cardboard as our material.

No CAD or other tool offers these benefits in a way that is as quick or as cheap to deliver. Whilst sometimes sceptical at the outset, almost all our clients see and agree the benefit of the approach when the exercise is completed.

Now it seems we are not alone! In this article (http://tinyurl.com/2wuwbbq) Airbus gained significant benefits in the design of the XWB fuselage through the use of mock-ups. It allowed them to avoid the mistakes of previous projects which had relied on CAD modelling and for testing future assembly processes.

The lesson seems to be that we have a variety of design tools at our disposal.  The skills is to bring the right ones in for the right purposes and rarely to rely on one method.