NOAH LEVIN

In a recent article in Interactions Magazine, Don Norman makes a bold claim that the primary function of design research has been to improve existing tools, not to cause innovation or major change. He argues that technology drives the latter. His controversial column caused an outburst in the design community, with many people jumping to the defense of design research and ethnographic studies as a method for radical growth. Others agreed with Norman’s claims that powerful inventions like the airplane, automobile, and the computer were the result of strictly technological developments. While it may contradict a some of my studies in HCI, after reading the article and the sparse feedback it solicited, I am prepared to stand behind Norman’s argument. I think that we are always going to be clouded in some way by what’s currently possible while doing research and giving design recommendations. Design research is an incredible way to improve upon existing technologies, making them useful, usable and enriching our experiences with them. Though we must remember that without new technology we would have nothing to work with. The problem with Norman’s article was not in his content, but in his abrasive language that may appear unreasonable when taken out of context.

The problem with Norman’s article was not in his content, but in his abrasive language

I think part of the reason this article received so much negative response is because the tone appeared a bit harsh at parts in an effort to make his argument sound more provocative. For example, he lists a series of inventions and says that “design research was irrelevant in the process”. However, its important to realize that when he says design research plays no role with that list, he’s referring to the invention of them, not necessarily making them useful. Certainly they are not usable until design research comes into play, and I think he agrees with that. So at a high level, many have questioned, “so what?”, in that obviously we’d need the technology to exist first before we can improve it to fit our everyday lives. But I think the interesting point he is making is that sometimes we are taught to think that design research is what creates the need for new technologies, where really it might be that new technologies that create the need for design research.

He’s a design researcher, so clearly he sees the value in the process. I think he may just be making an attempt to re-define its scope. A recent example is the iPad. Apple Engineers may have been driven in some sense by design research to create the product, but if it weren’t for the technological predecessors of small LCD screens, In-Plane Switching (IPS), and tiny powerful processors, I don’t think it would have been even dreamed of. Particularly interesting with this example is that many of us are questioning what use the iPad will actually have. I think design research will play the starring role here, informing us based on behavioral patterns and unspoken needs of uses we aren’t even aware of yet. Perhaps if Norman wasn’t so intentionally misleading and needlessly inflammatory the responses could have been more productive and we could work together and have a good conversation about the scope of design research.