I think this is a useful exercise, not only for projects like these, but for any experiences we create. However at some point, it is impossible to be completely objective and you have to take a point of view on how you think people will behave, or on how you want people to behave in a given situation. This is when things start to get interesting because one’s assumptions of how people will behave in various situations are determined in large part by how one views people in general.

If you assume people are generally smart and resourceful, you might design in one way. If you believe that people are generally stupid and lazy, you will design in another way. As deep divisions, like these, on how we see “everyone else” are at the heart of our political debates it’s fairly clear that there isn’t one truth.

However, I think that the experiences that result from our biases contain clear evidence of our biases. Certain Microsoft UX elements (like the classic Office Clippy for example) are clear signs that the designer had grave doubts about our ability to complete many tasks within Office, and was also convinced that we were either too stupid or too scared to interact with the software through a more adult interface. Perhaps this doesn’t rise to a conscious level for most users, but I have trouble believing that the intent was not felt by most of us. We are social beings, when interacting with others, we take our cues from their body language and tone. When interacting with digital experiences, I think we take our clues for context and tone from UI and design elements and information structure.

Technorati Tags: design, digital, experience, politics, semiotics, social, UX

Possibly related posts

• The Wabi-sabi Experience
• Defining User Experience
• Our Recent Thymes Work
• Social Media (for marketers) is not a communications vehicle.
• You are not a gadget.