All human-made objects we interact with are designed by someone, illustrating the significant impact of design. In Design for the Real World, Victor Papanek frequently discussed the importance and consequences of design. Mike Monteiro continues this conversation in Ruined by Design, providing examples of the negative effects of poor design. As we increasingly rely on technology, it's important to recognise the influence designers have on the people they design for, through the products they create.
Designers are often tasked with creating features without fully understanding the wider system or how their work might negatively impact others in the future. It's difficult to place blame on them for unintended consequences. Additionally, new agile working methods often mean designers don't have the time or resources to conduct thorough user research and testing, limiting their ability to consider potential negative outcomes.
In an article discussing the tension between Agile and design, the author highlights how the way Agile has been implemented often conflicts with design priorities. While the original Agile Manifesto emphasises that proper design enhances agility, many organisations implement Agile in ways that undermine this principle. Designers are frequently brought into projects late in the process, with design treated as an optional addition if time allows.
I have repeatedly observed projects fail due to the misapplication of Agile frameworks, where the focus shifts to cadence meetings (which the manifesto does not prescribe) and tools. The critical element—the Agile mindset—gets overlooked. Unlike rigid frameworks, the mindset is rooted in the original principles and does not require strict adherence to specific rules. As a result, designers often spend hours in unproductive meetings, leaving little to no time for essential activities like user research or testing.
Designers often feel disconnected from "end users" because, in practice, they rarely interact with them. In my own experience, I have rarely spoken directly to users. Occasionally, we receive feedback during user testing, but most of the design process is carried out with the "user" reduced to a persona profile posted on the wall, often created using feedback gathered from stakeholders who have interacted with users in some way. This gap in direct contact can lead to a cognitive bias, potentially decreasing empathy for users. The phrase "out of sight, out of mind" applies here.
The practice of engaging users is becoming more common across industries, supported by policies such as Consumer Duty in banking or the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which promote a user-centred, customer-focused approach. However, a challenge with such policies is their flexibility in implementation. Without specific mandates requiring user engagement, organisations may interpret these policies in ways that minimise additional effort.
Many designers I have spoken to express frustration with Agile methodologies, as they are often implemented poorly. This misapplication leaves little time for thorough due diligence. While the organisational impacts are typically considered, there is rarely sufficient time to genuinely reflect on the needs and perspectives of the audience.
While tools like empathy mapping, a visual representation of the attitudes and behaviours of an individual user, can help, if designers do not engage with users throughout the process, ethical fading can occur. Ethical fading is the tendency to overlook ethical considerations, particularly when under cognitive stress. It results in self-deception, as designers focus on the positives of their product and struggle to foresee any negative impacts their design might have on future users.
The authors of pitfalls of user-centred design, point out that before the adoption of this approach, organisations focused primarily on business needs. Now, the focus has shifted to user needs. However, in the private sector, business needs still largely dominate, with frameworks introduced to appear more human-centred but rarely fully implemented. Whether these frameworks are effective remains unclear, as every framework highlights some aspects while obscuring others.
User-centred design, like any other approach, has its blind spots. For example, Airbnb conducted thorough research into the host-guest experience but overlooked the broader network of neighbours, urban planners, hotel owners, and others. These stakeholders aren't "end users" but are still affected by the system. Alternative approaches, such as life-centred or society-centred design, have emerged, aiming to account for the broader system. However, these too, can serve as lenses that obscure certain aspects. It seems important to recognise these limitations.
The systems we design today are far more complex than those that existed when user-centred design first emerged. This complexity, coupled with our growing dependence on technology, amplifies the need to consider the ethical implications of our design decisions and their broader societal impact. Some philosophers propose that responsibility for these systems might not rest solely with designers but could also be shared with technology itself or even with users.
Peter-Paul Verbeek’s mediation theory offers a valuable lens for understanding this shared responsibility. Verbeek argues that technology is not a neutral tool but actively mediates human experiences, perceptions, and actions. In this view, technology shapes how users interact with the world and how ethical considerations are embedded within these interactions. For instance, the design of a digital platform can influence behaviours, such as encouraging certain purchasing decisions or determining how privacy is valued. This mediating role suggests that designers must think beyond creating functional solutions and consider how technologies shape human agency and values.
By recognising the mediatory role of technology, designers can adopt a more holistic perspective, one that accounts for the co-creation of meaning between humans and technology. This approach also underscores the need for collaboration between designers, users, and other stakeholders to ensure that ethical considerations are integrated throughout the design process. Verbeek’s theory challenges us to view design as a shared ethical endeavour, where responsibility is distributed across the network of human and technological actors involved.
Designers do not intend to cause harm; they aim to create products that users need and want. However, it's challenging to predict how a product will be used in the future. That's why it's essential to work in diverse teams and discuss the impacts of a product, both positive and negative. People may not always be as ethical as they believe, so it's beneficial to have others challenge assumptions. Some companies now employ ethicists to ensure that products and services are designed responsibly.
It’s easy to want to do the right thing, but in this increasingly inter-connected and complex world, it’s the doing part that can seem almost impossible. While it may be impossible to foresee all the negative impacts of what we design today, we can mitigate risks by working in diverse teams, involving users in the design process, and allocating project time to pause and reflect on what we are creating and how responsibly we are doing so. By taking these steps, we can develop products that genuinely benefit individuals and society as a whole.
The greatest challenge, however, lies in getting organisations to recognise the importance of this approach and implement the changes needed for design ethics to become truly embedded in practice.
Comments