Friday, 25 April 2008
-
Reflections on Smoke and Mirrors Article
Every fine designer should or would probably know that a good design marries both aesthetic beauty and functionality. Very rarely do we heap praises on a design that is high on functionality but visually repulsive or vice versa.
As the author pointed out, a truly good designer would probably already know, either through intuition or experience, what constitutes a great user interface. This is not to say that user research is completely useless. Research, both qualitative and quantitative, are useful in allowing the designer to better understand the situation and customer needs; in some cases it can provide valuable insights that will aid the designer in developing a better UI or in others, it may simply act as an affirmation to what was already anticipated. The key to useful research is of course interpretation, and this applies to both qualitative and quantitative analysis. All that research information is nothing if it cannot be rightfully interpreted and integrated.
It was highlighted that some designers and consultancies go as far as to make “scientific” user research the very foundation of their design process. In some cases, they even intentionally attempt (because they have never succeeded) to make subjective qualitative research look objective.
In my opinion, politics is most often the culprit behind such dubious and incredulous attempts. More often than not, these corporate bigwigs who are on the branding or marketing committee are clueless about design. Sad to say but in reality, numbers rule the world hence credit is given more to quantitative than qualitative analysis. To these boardroom executives, only quantitative material is justifiable. Thus I am not at all shocked that design agencies would devise means and ways to pander to their clients’ wishes. After all, just as the ideal of empirical, science-based user-centered design is something that we aspire to but never reach, the same can be spoken for artistic integrity as well.
Therefore it comes as no surprise that companies such as Eyetools would seek to give the impression that without the eyetracking studies we (and the site’s owners) would have no idea how or if each design was working. It is all marketing puffery, in no less fuelled by management’s obsession with quantifying and making a science out of just about everything.
Nonetheless, it is comforting to note that author did discover a branding agency that was upfront and honest that their final report, despite utmost care, was “not scientific”, that it was research, but it was entirely qualitative and subjective. Hopefully, the appreciation of qualitative data is something that will be recognised more fully in the future and not just something we aspire to but never reach.
-
recommend
- recs 0
-
share
-
email
- sent 0
Post a Comment