Recently in the Drawar discussions, Brandon Waybright posted an interesting question regarding User-Centered Design vs. Human-Centered Design. I posted a response in the comment thread, but I’m reposting a slightly modified version here because I think it’s an important misperception that needs to be addressed.
My main contention begins with the following statement:
Perhaps we need to stop obsessing over the user and consider the person that wants to see something exciting or that wants to simply break out of the norm for a moment. Perhaps we need to start ignoring the rules or at least we should learn to bend them?
Brandon preceded that argument with a quote from Richard Buchanan’s essay Human Dignity and Human Rights, which suggests that user-centered design (UCD), when strictly focused on usability, ignores the less tangible aspects of design that contribute to the total user experience of a product. This neatly dovetails into the hot topic of “emotional design” on the interwebs lately, coming together to make a compelling argument that UCD alone (and, specifically, UX practices) are not enough to create innovative experiences.
I don’t disagree. However, I think the blame for the lack of exciting design is incorrectly placed on the shoulders of the UCD discipline. The fault lies somewhere else.
You-See-Dee, Schmoo-See-Dee
To backtrack a little bit, it seems that there’s a perception that user-centered design is different from human-centered design. This isn’t a belief unique to Brandon — as I’ve heard it shared among other people — nor is it right or wrong. In my personal opinion, I think “user-centered” and “human-centered” design both embody the same principles, and any notion otherwise is simply the result of overanalyzing semantics. At the risk of oversimplifying the matter, humans are the users. However, I think what many people are alluding to with human-centered design is emotional design — how we can create product experiences that resonate with people on more than a mundane task-oriented, usability level.
I read an article a while back ago (Unable to find it. Damn bookmarks!) that debated the merits of incremental A/B testing vs. full-scale redesigns. The author’s point was that, although A/B testing is good for controlled testing of UI elements and modules, in the grand scheme of the entire site experience, it usually results in a very small percentage change in whatever KPI you’re measuring. On the other hand, a large redesign of an entire page, section, or website could result in a significantly larger improvement. Of course, with such a large change, you lose an apple-to-apples baseline comparison, and with the large potential for getting a huge gain, you also run the risk of a huge loss.
The reason why I bring this up is that the majority of websites belong to for-profit organizations. Although there are many full-site redesigns, I believe that the majority of changes on any medium or large website are small and iterative. Part of this is logistical — it would be unreasonable for Amazon to redesign the entire site and launch the site with a flip of the switch. The other part of this is risk — from Amazon’s perspective, there is simply no stomach, nor any need, to make huge, sweeping design changes when they have a reasonably flexible and scalable design framework to iterate upon.
So in the case of a full redesign, there’s opportunity for a huge gain (or loss). On the other hand, incremental testing and UI changes pretty much guarantee measurable improvement over the long run. Which path should be taken, and does it depend? In my opinion, there’s a balance somewhere in between.
But That’s Not UCD’s Fault
A UCD approach — if taken only incrementally — can indeed result in some glacially slow progress. However, I don’t think UCD is to blame. UCD primarily focuses on obtaining qualitative/quantitative data throughout the discovery and testing stages to ensure that the product and design satisfy user goals. UCD does not dictate what the experience is supposed to be — it merely serves to inform the decisions behind the design. If the website is not innovative, that’s not UCD’s fault — it’s the fault of the people who were not able to leverage the process to make something innovative. It is simply a tool, a means to an end.
In the case of all the people out there regurgitating CSS Remix or Smashing Magazine, I believe part of that can be blamed on the desire to follow trends and tested conventions. For better or for worse, there is some weight behind the saying, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Many people, Brandon included, are very right in suggesting that blindly following these trends and conventions, without an understanding behind why they work, has led us a very boring collection of me-too websites. It’s just that UCD is not the root of that problem.
It’s the people designing them.