Design Thinking is the designer's version of Agile. It’s becoming cult like. (Bill Killam)

Robert Jay Lifton is a psychologist famous for his seminal work on brainwashing and cults. He’s known, in particular, for an eight-point definition of what actually constitutes a cult. One of those points relates to language:

Loading the Language – The group interprets or uses words and phrases in new ways so that often the outside world does not understand.

When I was initially exposed to Agile, this was one of the first things that struck me. Why call a meeting a “meeting,” when you can call it a “ceremony”? Why call a schedule a “schedule,” when you can call it a “timebox”? Why call a chart a “chart,” when you can call it an “information radiator”?

I noticed something similar with Design Thinking – “ideation,” “MVP,” “bodystorming,” “divergence/convergence,” “culture probes,” “How might we?” … 

Now, every new way of thinking really does need some new terms. Sometimes, though, these terms serve other purposes entirely. They can, for example, separate an in-crowd from everyone else. They might also be used to enforce a certain way of thinking (words can and do shape thoughts) or even stop thinking entirely.

Finally, they can also take existing ideas and make them sound fresh. You know, old wine in new bottles.

And Design Thinking is a little different from Agile in that last regard. Agile really does involve some new ideas and thinking – especially when contrasted with waterfall. Design Thinking, on the other hand, sounds a lot like good, old-fashioned user-centered design, at least to me. Yeah, there are a few different emphases – getting the whole team involved, that divergence/convergence thing – but really it should sound pretty familiar to anyone who’s been in the biz more than just overnight.

It’s actually a fairly common practice in business – take somebody else’s ideas, rebrand it, own it, market it, and cash in. If you get people to get so excited about it that it approaches cult status, well, even better!

Bill is president of User-Centered Design, an adjunct professor at George Mason, and has been in the biz for 30+ years

If I had one hour to solve a problem, I’d spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem and five minutes thinking about the solution. (Albert Einstein)

And that’s because coming up with a solution will only take 5 minutes once you fully understand the problem. Believe me, I run into it all the time.

Take usability reports, for example. For these, it’s almost always the case that I’ve actually spent a ton of time with each issue. I’ve listened to hours of tapes, I’ve sifted through tons of notes, I’ve rearranged quotes and behaviors in multiple buckets, I’ve struggled with ways to understand what exactly what was going on, I've struggled to get some persepective from a higher level … The reports do indeed write themselves.

And that’s also why I almost always include suggestions in my reports. I figure if I’ve spent that much time thinking about something, I’ve probably got some good ideas already on how it might be fixed. And seeing that I’ve been doing this for 30+ years, this is probably not the first time I’ve run across that issue either.

I do get pushback sometimes though. Indeed, designers tend to be a bit touchy when you “tell them what to do.” Now, I can definitely understand that. Personally, I hate it when clients come to me with a demand for one method over another without first talking about what they actually want feedback on. 

So, what I typically do is call it a “suggestion” and say that it just occurred naturally as I was writing up the report and that you can take it or leave it. I mean, it’s all supposed to be a collaborative effort anyway, right? Heck, I really don’t care if you claim the solution as your own. All I really want is that the issue is addressed somehow, or even that the team has thought about addressing the issue but have good reasons (business, standards, whatever) for not doing so. 

Interestingly, I also get similar feedback from the occasional user researcher. They typically say something about being above the fray, staying unbiased, focusing on the issues, etc. Personally, I think it’s something of a cop-out.

I mean, honestly … You’ve spent hours on this stuff. You’ve probably even seen it before on other tests. Heck, you might even have a design background yourself. Why not throw something out there – to at least get the conversation started and stake out a place at the table? 

Einstein also said:

• "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."
• "If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough."
• "Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."

I like it simple when I’m doing complicated things. (One of my users)

I had always heard this one a little differently – in particular, “Make simple things simple and complex things possible.” I think this user is really on to something though.

This particular user was talking about a complex field – securities trading. I forget what exactly he was trying to do, but there are plenty of crazy trades investors can make out there. Take options, for example. Would you believe you can do strangles, condors, iron butterflies, naked spreads …?  Indeed, you can – I am not making this stuff up!

Now, what I think he was getting at – i.e., what he was trying to tell me, a seasoned user researcher – was that he was trying to combine two bits of cognitive load. First was the particular trade he was trying to do. Second was trying to translate that into something on the particular UI he was staring at. Wow, that’s a lot!

Now, “making simple things simple and complex things possible” would really mean just providing him with the functionality to make that particular trade possible. Is it really okay to just leave it at that though? Isn’t there something else we could do for him?

Now, I do realize that that original quote was really directed at not designing for the exception. But I do like to go one step further in cases like these. And that’s to suggest a wizard.

So, instead of just saying, “Have at it,” what I like to do is engage the user in a bit of conversation. Before I can do that, though, I have to get a real feel of what that conversation’s really all about and all the places where it might lead.

And that’s why I always suggest some pretty heavy-duty task analysis before undertaking anything even remotely like this. What are the actual steps? What are the different options the user has? What is their ultimate goal? Doing that allows you to lay out the conversation in a way so that it all makes sense to the user and actually appears manageable to them. 

And that goes whether you’re really creating a wizard, or are instead doing a chatbot, a dynamic form, or simply laying out a form or set of screens in a logical way …  or, really, doing anything where the user may be struggling with the task already – let alone trying to make sense of your UI. Indeed, don’t think of it as creating x, y, or z, but as reducing cognitive load, maybe even helping fashion a mental model.

In so many words … Don’t just throw it at them, like a maze! Go out of your way to help them make their way through it – like the incredible wizard that you are!

Just in case you thought I was making that stuff up

Designers shooting for usable is like a chef shooting for edible. (Aarron Walter)

In general, I agree with this and totally understand where this guy is going with it. Personally, though, it kind of rubbed me the wrong way the first time I heard it. 

First, it sounded sort of like things should revolve around the designer, and not the user. Maybe it’s just me, but shouldn’t the chef be super-focused on providing an excellent meal for his patrons? Similarly, shouldn’t designers be shooting for an excellent experience for their users?

Yes, there are celebrity chefs out there who seem to reverse the two sides of the equation. I don’t know about you, but the places those guys run are not where I really want to eat every night. First of all, I can’t afford it. Second, I don’t always have the time for a 3-hour, 8-course meal. And, sometimes, I just hate to get dressed up and go out. I mean once in awhile is fine, but not all the time.

Honestly, are all designers really chefs? Aren’t there plenty of roles out there that really call more for cooks? I may simply want to buy a book, or pay a bill, or look something up, or reserve a rental car. A burger and fries would be the gastronomic equivalent for this. Really, I don’t expect Thomas Keller cooking tableside if I have a half hour at my desk between meetings for lunch.

Maybe the quote simply begs the question … What should the designer be shooting for? If it’s not usability, what is it? 

Well, what I often hear is delight, or creativity, or innovation, or passion ... Which is all well and good. 

Most places I’ve worked at, though, are more like greasy spoons, with lines around the corner, and the fryer has just broken down, and we’re down two waitresses … Pretty much not El Bulli. Honestly, though, between the deadlines and the politics and the HIPPOs (highest paid person’s opinion) and the marketeers and all the rest of it, if a designer can provide a usable experience, I say toques off to them! 

I really think that’s only going to happen, though, if the user is first and foremost in the designer’s mind. Believe me, I have seen plenty of instances where the designer thought they were creating molecular gastronomy, but all they were really doing was serving up some foul stew that no user could possibly figure out or even want to engage with.

Sure, shoot for those Michelin stars, designer/chefs! At the same time, though, don’t forget to keep slinging out the hash and keeping those lights on.

Aarron is a VP at InVision, started UX at MailChimp & has written a couple of books

(Not too surprisingly, though, he started out with a BFA and MFA in painting)