David Malouf...great, provocative post. OK...this is what I believe in: Design to empower people. Design to encourage and allow people to question. Design to encourage mindfulness of self. Design to encourage, teach, and reward critical thinking. Design to allow people to see there are choices...that there are always choices. Design to encourage non-lemming-like behaviors. Design to reward people for being themselves and thinking in their own unique ways. Design to help people understand their impacts on others and the environment. Design to create comfort around the existence of negative capability, ambiguity, complexity and "not knowing." Design in ways that reward finding that there's almost never one "right" answer and to distrust claims of absolute correctness. Design to communicate divergence from any groupthink is ok. Design to convey it's more important to their gut, instincts, and passions rather than someone on twitter. Design to show that we're all different, and we're all connected. Design unashamedly with love and inspire love in others.
That is what I'm a zealot about. It's none of my business (or concern) what precisely somebody believes, or what they do with their highly functioning brain and heart. My work is done if people are more mindful after interacting with something I've designed than beforehand. If they're smarter. If their awareness of choices is greater, rather than narrowed. If they don't feel duped, or helpless, or hapless, or less important. If they're willing to take a chance on something scary, and be a little bit more ok with doing so. I don't believe the concept of choice architect is literally about placing multi-grain organic crackers on central shelves rather than Cheez Whiz. The point, as I see it, is to be mindful of choices we're making as designers -- to know with every breath and with every decision that our decisions are NOT value neutral -- they are not made in a vacuum from ethics and morality, and even minutely may impact people's lives and they way they move forward in their lives. That we're designing for human beings and we *are* impacting them. That power is embedded in our position, and to use that power thoughtfully . Whenever possible, to share our power with "users," rather than take it away by telling what to do. And to own, and take responsibility for, the behaviors we are eliciting, encouraging, and rewarding. Manipulation is manipulation whether it's intended for [what an individual or group considers] Good or for Harm. Propaganda is propaganda whether convincing children not to smoke, or discouraging people not to throw trash out the car window because it makes the Indian or Baby Jesus cry, or conveying that turning to a pill to sleep is normal, expected, The Answer. To be unflinchingly plain with ourselves about what we're doing, and do our best to rationalize. The example provided of Obama is important, but undifferentiated. What Obama as an individual seems to have espoused vs what his campaign and soon Administration are catalyzing via IxD (and social media) are radically different. The latter (campaign and Administration) have clear agenda and vested interest in the specific actions people take. They are/were intended to benefit the campaign and the Administration. They also had/have aims for benefiting communities, humanity, etc. But clearly a keen element of self-interest. The end of the civic engagement, thus far, has not been the Kantian "Ding an sich" -- in this case: civic engagement as an end in itself -- to empower individuals to participate actively in a democracy, regardless of specific policy-supporting outcomes. Rather, it's designed to achieve ends that benefit the campaign/Administration. While I agree with a lot of what the Administration hopes to achieve, I'm ambivalent about what I perceive as the "yoking up" of a volunteer workforce. Rather than the priority being to cultivate legions of smart, empowered thinkers, actors, and decision-makers -- without whom are democracy is a farce. I personally hope this shifts, and if it does, it will indeed be the most radical administration in the history of our country. Because it will be about empowering people to make their own decisions and inspire them to engage -- but stop short of telling them HOW. And to me, that's the most interesting challenge for designers. caveat: of course in our worklives we sometimes will have to "guide" users and tell them what to do. I have done some things I consider fairly heinous interns of respecting the humanity and autonomy of "users." I also deliberately do otherwise every chance I can. I'm suggesting, basically, to consider subversion by way of creating experiences that value simplicity but acknowledge underlying complexity and individual choices and empowerment. Something like that :) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=36296 ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [email protected] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
