Twitter is all abuzz (atwitter?!) about @bokardo’s post on “his blog: Demystifying Interaction Design“. To summarize, here’s the opening quote: “If interaction design isn’t about influencing behavior…then what exactly are you doing?”
@bokardo goes on to say, “Good design elicits the right behavior, poor design does not.” The word elicit implies “manipulation”, but design isn’t about control: It’s about creating a clear conduit of communication between a user and data. It’s about clearing away all the extraneous information so the user can interact with her data in the most efficient way possible.
Indeed! I think there actually is an answer here. Design doesn’t influence behavior: It facilitates it.
Interaction Design is much simpler than this, and I think much less about manipulating user behavior. No one can understand what Interaction Designers do (and designers in general) because we’re so unclear about it. Even I’m unclear about it when I try to discuss it to the uninitiated.
Let me clarify with an example
A beautiful Ducati motorcycle without its handlebars is simply an unusable hunk of candy-apple-red Italian craftsmanship. Do the handlebars control the user in the way they are designed? No. Can the user control the motorcycle without them? No. One requires the other to realize its true purpose with the interaction.
In my view, the motorcycle designer(s) merely facilitated this interaction. Of course this connection has developed over many years; starting with the invention of the bicycle, but the same idea can be applied to software: Interaction Designers champion the users, not the software.
Eliciting responses doesn’t factor in. Allowing interactions to happen smoothly, does.
What is software, really? Organizing a user’s data. The user must access this data with an application. That’s it! Those are the two components that software handles. The data can be images, videos, medical records, music, email (text), currency transactions, VOIP, and so on and the equation is still the same.
Interaction Design connects users to their data (I’m quoting myself on Twitter, here).
Why is this concept so hard for us Interaction Designers to communicate? It’s as if Interaction Design is like the human brain that cannot describe itself, it can only observe the world. Like a psychologist who cannot self diagnose.
Users want to be connected to their data
It seems behavior is important, but it’s just a subset of the larger issue (ie. the simpler fact) that users want to be connected with their data. Applications facilitate this. Interaction Design is in between. I don’t think I need to draw a diagram on this one but here goes:
Data <--> UI/IxD <--> User
There. Problem solved. Now if we could only communicate this to the world at large and get a response more concrete than, “What’s an Interaction Designer, that sounds interesting?”. Groan.