ideas worth stealingA mile in their shoes
I’ve thought for a long time that, whenever possible, we should perform firsthand the activities our applications are meant to support. I’ve advocated this during conference sessions, in articles, in blog posts, and in conversation more times than I can remember.
As a result of this, some people—mostly professional interaction designers, in fact—have essentially called me foolish.
But then last week, Adaptive Path made the same case, when Alexa Andrzejewski wrote the blog post A mile in their shoes, about her experiences as she personally endured the activities of a newly-diagnosed diabetic.
From the post:
“As I pricked myself with needles and logged every carb at every meal, I quickly found that making these challenges my own got my mind’s wheels spinning a lot more often and a lot harder. They spun every time I rationed out cereal with measuring cups (subtracting fiber carbs in my head). They spun as I fretted over the ambiguous portions at restaurants. They spun as I snuck sandwiches onto the office mailing scale because I had no clue what 56g looks like.
While I could have learned about any of these issues by reading forums or blog threads, experiencing them for myself left me with a deep sense of empathy, a head full of ideas, and a nagging drive to find or build solutions.“
Alexa fully admits—as I have—that there are potential issues to this approach. For example, performing activities as a “tourist” is by no means a perfect substitute for being a person who actually must perform the activities regularly. The best person to explain the challenges of being a diabetic is a diabetic.
But—and I wish Alexa had said this—even as a tourist, performing an activity yourself is a far superior research method than simply interviewing or watching other people perform it. Observation has its merits, but observing how an auto mechanic works is very different than actually repairing a car.
Alexa could have performed hundreds of interviews, but she would have never internalized the challenges of a diabetic better than she did by performing those activities herself.
And I’m so glad she did. Not only will she design a better product, she’ll do it from an informed, firsthand perspective, and her product’s end users will benefit as a result.
Of course, there’s one other benefit to Alexa’s research. The next time someone accuses me of going off the deep end, I can point to a blog post from one of the most respected and well-known design firms in the industry.
Thanks, Alexa.
Posted by Robert on August 11th, 2008
5 comments
Glad to see you picked up on this post and have the same idea. I enjoyed your straightforward summary.
I’m curious what arguments against the approach your naysaying peers have put forward. Is the primary concern that our outside perspectives will falsely color our design approach? And is that an irreconcilable flaw?
Thanks!
Alexa
P.S. Good luck with the “AP said it” approach, but be forewarned: We’re known for being a little unconventional and controversial now and then. ;-)
Thanks for stopping by, Alexa.
Yes, the primary argument is that you risk doing self-referential design when you’re not truly part of the target audience. But as an interaction designer, I focus on the activity the application is meant to support rather than the audience(s) that may or may not use it. This is where I get the most resistance.
I’m not sure why this is so difficult for many designers to accept as a design method. The fact is, you can’t really design to support users’ goals—you can only design to support their behaviors. By focusing on the activity, one can design something that works well regardless of a user’s goal. I’ve done this time and time again and have had much success with it. And my design decisions are very often based on performing an activity firsthand.
As far as controversy goes, I think AP and I have that in common. I very often break from convention, but I always do so in the interest of better design.
Thanks again for the great post.
I would say that you diminish the risks of “self-referential design” by actually becoming a target user of your product - actually participating in the activity yourself. I don’t see it as much different than “eating your own dogfood.” Isn’t necessity the mother of invention and all that?
I just don’t know if I could go so far to stick myself with needles. That takes some serious dedication. I wonder if Alexa, as a “tourist” was able to recognize the pain points (pun intended) even moreso because the process was new to her and not yet a daily habit.
Great point, Josh. In fact, I even included a section about “Eating your own dog food” in Designing the Obvious.
It astounds me that more people don’t try this firsthand approach to design. Maybe it needs a name. Maybe once it has a name, it’ll be a legitimate solution.
I was thinking about that. I thought you had mentioned it before, but didn’t remember which book. I also remember Joel Spolsky mentioning it in one of his books. It’s a big deal in the development community as a counter-point to the “you are not your user” mantra.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eat_one’s_own_dog_food
Still, sticking oneself with needles needlessly deserves some kind of award.