For anyone who reads my articles, hopefully it has become quite apparent that one of the staples of what I write about is centered on building Credibility in Design. And that typically manifests itself in advocating and promoting the work of Product Designers (with different levels of experience and influence), and the impact that these professionals have in cultivating Design Literacy. This promotion of Design Literacy also has implications in the advancement of the level of UX or Product Design maturity of Organizations who for the most part, are not Design Led or Design Centric. However one doesn’t have to go very far to start reading statements that I personally find problematic, and at times perpetuate the notion that Designers are a caste onto themselves, of enlightened professionals who by sheer happenstance or touch of genius, are able to dramatically change the direction of an Organization, leapfrogging the competition in the process, and generally speaking, deliver a Hollywood style “ending” for the project they’re working on. And while some of these hyperbolic statements are at times a combination of self-promoting and boastful claims, they also tend to create the notion that solutions are magically triggered by unicorns who usually walk amongst ourselves under the guise of Designers. Here are some statements that I’ve captured throughout the years, and that I find problematic and ultimately jeopardize the aspect of building credibility in Design (and for Design).

1. Advocating solutions based on instinct.
2. Personas or Characters are un-necessary or purely academic techniques.
3. Data plays a far too important role in creating solutions.
4. Empathy makes for better Designers.
5. Coolness is synonymous with sales and larger product footprints.

Advocating solutions based on Instinct. I’ve both read and heard some troublesome statements under the general umbrella of Instinct. Statements include: “Designers should trust their instinct when developing solutions,” and others such as “Use your instinct in order to quickly come up with solutions” and another one being “My intuition tells me this solution will work and deliver results”. All those statements showcase a series of issues which are corrosively problematic. Firstly, Designers don’t craft solutions on their own. A product solution is devised as a convergence of multiple points of view, originating from different peers and team members, alongside with feedback and data hailing from all sorts of different sources, one of them being of course users and consumers. Assuming a Designer or group of Designers single handedly craft a solution without taking into consideration all these different layers of data is nonsensical, and again removes credibility from a discipline that is all about understanding motivations, solving problems and delivering pertinent solutions. Another considerable problem to these statements pertain to the intangible term that is “Instinct”. Are Designers taught “Instinct” or is it acquired from experience, or is it part of someone’s DNA? Even the most unique and creative thinker in the history of Humanity, always came up with solutions based on problems he or she was looking to solve (or a possible opportunity that presented itself). And that thinker/strategic person had to devote some time in observation, reflection, concepting and testing in order to provide sensical solutions (and chances are, collaborate with a series of other artisans/professionals in order to get what was needed). The same can be said for Designers and their peers when pursuing solution crafting.

Human Centered Design is not a recipe book intended to be sold as a gimmick by businesses aiming to make a buck at the expense of Organizations unfamiliar with what this terminology means. It actually implies working with inclusive and diverse teams, and simultaneously involving users, understanding problems and the context in which they exist, alongside testing and iterating in a manner that is effective, insightful and relevant for the task at hand. If “Instinct” is used in a discussion as an equivalent for “Experience” or “Foresight” that can take a different dimension, since it essentially becomes synonymous with the level of expertise that a professional in the field has acquired which in turn can inform the overall process with additional insights, direction, strategy, implementation and quality of the output. But this type of “instinct” also depends on the quality of the professional itself, since Experience without self-awareness, adaptation, constant growth, flexibility, or evolution, also implies that a professional can become stagnant and therefore how much does that experience truly inform the quality of the professional and ultimately of the project itself. Which is why “Instinct” in Design is a very loaded term. And just as an additional consideration, is “Instinct” something some selected few are magically gifted with, which enables them to seemingly understand the pertinence of a solution, or only more seasoned professionals have an accurately developed sense for what is going to perform? The point I’m ultimately making is: move away from statements anchored on “Instinct”, since they’re typically more reflective of professionals who want to make a personal statement about themselves (and their ego), and less about the Design craft and what problem solving actually entails.

Personas or Characters are an Academic Technique. This was a surprise statement that I read not long ago. Someone wrote they had never used “Personas” in any project/product they had conceived in their professional careers. And I immediately thought: there hasn’t been a situation across any of the products myself and the teams I’ve worked with in over 15 years of professional experience, where Personas/Characters weren’t leveraged during that same process. As Academic of an exercise as it may seem, Characters/Personas allow for teams to better understand whom that solution is being built for. And more importantly, if they are indeed well crafted, teams get a better understanding of motivations, journeys and what drives users/consumers to behave in a certain way. Everything that Product Teams conceive has to adjust itself to behaviors and habits of users, which means that any information that allows for a better understanding of these individuals, will likely result in a higher success rate.

Data is overplayed. Another statement I read a while back. Let me counterbalance this expression with another one. Crafting solutions without leveraging data, is essentially undermining the validity of what is being crafted. Data stemming from contextual research, from usability testing, from customer support (and voice of the customer sessions), from reviews, from metrics, from market analysis, all provides the essential pillars on which solidly crafted solutions are built upon. The whole “Instinct” (check point 1) angle once again demonstrates and proves nothing, and invariably is tested and measured against the needs of actual users. The problem by then is the cost of producing and delivering something has already been accounted for, which typically means, the solution for whatever it is worth, just goes to market the way it is. I witnessed an event which was already unfolding by the time I joined that team, where a lead Designer shepherded an endeavor for a new product solution, where the research was broadly skimmed in detriment of what this person believed to be the “correct solution”. As it turns out when the actual users were presented with the ongoing and in-development solution, there was a general sense of consternation, married with expressions such as “This isn’t what we need/What happened to what we described that we needed” and instead of adapting and accounting for that data, the Lead Designer chose to ignore much of this feedback. The lesson in this case is: don’t believe your own hype, don’t be myopic and seek out your users, testers and make sure you have the data you need to make informed decisions.

Empathy makes for better Designers. I’ve written about the topic of Empathy before. You can read it here. My point was and continues to be: professionals in general should be empathetic towards their colleagues, their users and people in general. They ought and try to be self aware and conscientious individuals and professionals. Does that mean they’re a better professional for being more empathetic and as a direct result more apt to build better solutions? The answer is No. Being able to understand and comprehend users goes beyond empathy. It actually requires observing, documenting and comprehending aspects such as demographics, habits, the social-economical environment in which they live, roles users play, amongst other factors that impact users’ existence. We don’t live in a bubble or in a vacuum. We’re influenced by a series of policies, politics, societal parameters, factors that have a profound effect on how we interact with each other, and with products. Understanding these factors is essential, whereas being empathetic hopefully means you have an ability to be a good listener, better understand what others tell you and relate to it.

Coolness is cool. Matt Groening’s “The Simpsons” has a great episode on what it means to be cool (you can check the snippet here). In some threads I read online, there’s a generalized perception that coolness translates into a value surplus, which subsequently gives the impression of success to a solution. This statement is however problematic since “coolness” means different things for different people, according to their age, gender, social and political perspectives and even country (both from their origin and where they currently live). Cultural references inform and impact what some individuals consider “cool” and while this term is at times associated with “desirability”, the term itself is also loaded with all sorts of biases towards certain age groups. At a time when product solutions are meant to be more inclusive, this can easily become a bigger problem to solve for. With that being said, not all product solutions are meant for the same groups, and “desirability” should be part of a heuristic analysis that is performed of a solution (with other factors which should be taken into account including relevance, value, clarity, friction and distraction). These types of analysis ultimately give a more well rounded perception of how a solution is perceived, and more accurately illustrate what is driving the user towards that same solution. Ultimately deeming a solution “cool” is a broad and intangible qualifier, one that needs to be sustained and complimented with data. Only then does it paint a picture of what it actually means to be a desirable solution on some level.

Hopefully this article provides some good discussion points and is a catalyst for some reflection by professionals in the Product Design arena.

Legendary Chinese philosopher Laozi stated this on the topic of Ego:

“The ego is a monkey catapulting through the jungle: fascinated by the realm of the senses it swings from one desire to the next, one conflict to the next. Let this monkey go. Let desires go. Let conflicts go. Let ideas go. Just remain in the center, watching.”