Not all technologies need a problem

Over the years, I’ve worked on several projects that presumed the use of user-centred design methods. However, whether it was designing technology for people with disabilities or people worried about AI’s impact on the humanity of work, the conversation around the person was often more important that the one around the technology. I often found myself following these people in conversation instead of leading into the ‘design specifications’ I was sent to collect. After enough time, I realised this was the only way to do it. In fact, I learnt that this is what sales does. In an ideal world, this is immediately obvious to everyone. To me - a techy compsci - this was not yet the case.

After some years of rehashing my argument, I found out about human-centred design.

Unpacking Human-Centred Design

Human-centred design is not always used consciously, but it is a well-established school of design. Its more common cousin (child, actually) is user-centred design. The difference is not always relevant or respected, but here’s an attempt at contrasting the two:

User-Centered Design (UCD):

• Focus: understanding and meeting the needs, wants, and limitations of the end users of a product or system.
• Methods: direct user feedback and iterative design processes related to the usability and experience of the product.
• Applied UCD considers the closed system that is the user and the computer. This is not strictly closed, but rather aims to reach a well-defined problem that can be addressed as though it were a closed system.

Human-Centered Design (HCD):

• Focus: considering the context in which the product will be used, including human, social, and cultural aspects. Necessarily, the needs and wants are also incorporated.
• Methods: more holistic approach to design, considering individual, community, and societal impact. Regularly involves ethnographic research and reflective investigation.
• Applied HCD considers the open system that is the human and the computer, where human can be thought of as a superset of the user. This means HCD does not aim to define and therefore reduce it to a problem, rather it aims to find ways to improve and not solve the system’s state.

“Problems” - words are important

This distinction between the positions of UCD’s ‘technology addressing problems’ versus HCD’s ‘technology supporting people’ is critical to understand to apply the appropriate method in design. Problems imply some reasonably well-defined scenario and the existence of a solution that resolves the problem. Human-centred design works under and around the person to support their life and circumstances.

Mental health, social support, and creativity are but a few aspects of experience that don’t work in the lenses of user-centred design because they’re not problems in the traditional sense. It’s a deeply frowned upon perspective in healthcare and psychology to consider one to be ‘broken’ and therefore ‘fixable’. Instead, an individual’s situation can be improved or at least the displeasure can be eased. I believe this perspective should extend to design.

This brief note is not about attacking user-centred methods, rather it is about calling for designers to consider their responsibility and impact in making tools for people. Businesses will always have problems - the goal to ‘create more value’ is well-defined. UCD provides measurable conditions for success, allowing companies to move to address other problems and so on and so on.

Things like social connection, fulfilment, and happiness are not fixable. Not all aspects of the human experience are problems, so please don’t try to solve lives.