Research vs Design

I responded the other day to a post on the Interaction Design Association message board (ixda.org), entitled "Say No to Genius Design."

Referring a perfectly cogent interview with Dan Saffer in 2006 the poster noted that "some newbie designers take it as the secret path to grand design success, which is not a good thing from my understanding."

This reminds me of a debate I used to have about instructional design. My friend liked to contrast the "scientific" approach, based on research, with the "intuitive" approach, based on... well, he would said nothing but instinct. I would say that while the scientific approach breaks everything down into individually verifiable tidbits, the intuitive approach makes a many - just as rational - decisions at once.

Of course, the catch is that the results are good only when the person making the intuitive design decisions is really smart, understands technology constraints, and has a great instinct for users as well. When Steve Jobs does it, it usually comes out pretty well (ipod) but not always (Newton - or was he gone then?)! Anyway, good designers do have - or develop - a reliable intuitive sense of what works and what doesn't.

BTW another factor in the Jobs/iPod success is that the designer was the CEO! He had the power to see the concept through to complete expression in all aspects and at all levels; many great product concepts get compromised or destroyed through bureaucratic compromise, turf wars, etc.

Sure, some testing is better than no testing, and before release is better than after, but keep in mind some critical limitations of testing:

- Testing is not design. Testing reveals problems, but simply reversing the condition you tested is seldom the best design solution. Usually there are clusters of related issues. To address them all well takes creative design, which always involves some degree of "intuition" or "genius."

- You can't test everything. During development, you can test the bit you're unsure about and improve them, but some aspect you thought was a no-brainer could turn out to be the most problematic for users (or buyers).

- Don't forget the factor of fashion! Sometimes the market likes something that doesn't make a lot of sense but just seems new and fresh. These market hits seldom come out of research!

In short, a bit of research never hurts, but it's no substitute for creative design.

Purpose of This Blog

The idea of this blog is to provide solace and comfort to those who do not "go gentle" into the brave new world of modern life -- those who do not find every innovation a blessing and yet wish to keep up with the times. Those who are ready to embrace change as a fact of modern life, but who also wish to look at changes critically, observe the trade-offs that accompany them, and occasionally mourn the passing of some pleasing byproduct of the old way as it hurtles toward obsolescence.

For the moment, I wish to remain anonymous, but I will admit to being both technologically literate and "of a certain age." I've lived in most parts of the country and abroad for a few years, but I now live in the Northeast.

My hope is that these ruminations will be of interest to people a little older than the typical blog watcher, perhaps just lately becoming more conversant with technology, and in need of hearing that their frustrations with a new computer, audio system, or online account need not reflect badly on their intelligence but rather on the excessive complexity or poor design of the products with which they are wrestling. Of course, anyone can read and participate!