Design is an act of creating something with intention. This definition relies on a premise that outcomes can be predicted and/or controlled. Design’s monetary value is built on assumptions that design (the cause) makes visual communications more effective and leads to enhanced engagement and sales (the effect).
However, accountability for outcomes is often untracked and may be untrusted by designers. ‘Research’ might mean a systematic investigation in pursuit of exploratory thought. Or, it may be a gathering of external justifications to confirm preformed conclusions.
[In a] 2005 study by Metropolis magazine of 1,051 design practitioners and academics … [s]ome respondents thought research was choosing colors for a project, while others cited deep studies of user behavior.
Meredith Davis and Deborah Littlejohn
Skepticism of the role of research and accountability for outcomes in design stems from the intuitive, aesthetic components of the process. While click-through conversions are easily quantified, there is no objective standard for measuring aesthetic resonance across multitudes of intersecting cultures.
At a basic level design process is the ability to anticipate the visual elements an intended audience will respond to. A designer curates relevant cues and styles them. Design work is frequently compensated on an hourly rate, so efficiency is prioritized. Mental shortcuts, such as noting “the easier something is to remember, the more prevalent… it is”* helps designers reach conclusions as quickly as possible.
However, this shortcut creates unconscious bias. Brand identities, user interfaces, retail environments – our visual world – have been built on such mental shortcuts that favor the disposition and experiences of the designer or client rather than the audiences they purport to represent.
A striking example of design detached from its audience was Pepsi’s advertisement from 2017 – described as “tone-deaf” for its trivialization of racial tensions, protests and police brutality. The public backlash prompted Pepsi to retract the ad, stating: “Pepsi was trying to project a global message of unity, peace and understanding. Clearly, we missed the mark and apologize. We did not intend to make light of any serious issue.” While other high-profile advertisements have linked into social issues, Pepsi’s was noteworthy for its artificial desire to “start conversations” about significant issues while really hoping to sell more product.
In other ways design does connect deeply with audiences – through its ability to manufacture desire.
There’s a huge gap between what customers buy and what customers really want. Sharp-eyed and persistent master demand creators discern that gap and fill it.
ADRIAN SLYWOTZKY
However, the sponsorship to fill this gap is almost exclusively focused on generating revenue. If the needs of the audience are at odds with the potential for profit, profit wins.
[D]esign has become both more pervasive and less responsible. …Jony Ive, of Apple …lovingly crafts smooth, chamfered edges for his company’s world-conquering products. The aesthetic is precise, alluring—but the objects are designed to meet a suspiciously early obsolescence. Indeed, most of the things that we hold in our hands and stare at, day after day, are examples of “good design”—great design, even, in terms of their inextricability from life. But more and more their social benefit seems questionable. As objects they are meant to be replaced, and they function, …as talismans of our own status. What would design look like if its aim weren’t profit?
Nikil Saval
Designers are given resources to shape what people desire when it makes money, but little is allocated to address the needs unlikely to generate revenue. What accountability in industry that does exist is likely tied to tracking revenue. What value accountability has in the industry is also likewise linked to charging more for services. What is lost when design is so closely linked to profit is seeing the wholeness of the audiences it serves; addressing long-term needs.
It’s essential that a designer doesn’t attempt to speak on behalf of people, but to give them a platform to speak for themselves.
Jessica Soberman
Rather than impose external perspectives, designers can empower their audiences’ voices instead. Doing so requires a shift in methodology to build meaningful connections between designers and the people they are creating for.
This blog is a collection of experiences, perspectives and observations about why the way we design matters, who is doing it differently and how design education can facilitate change.