User-Centered-Design in Industrial Design?

While the Elements and Principles of Design span all visual design, not all concepts apply so widely. Trying to find evidence of one such concept produced unexpected results.

In this article we will look at User Centred Design (UCD). What is it? Is it new, is it useful or is it just marketing subterfuge? Does it, or could it relate to Industrial Design? We'll also look at some examples and assess the role of UCD.

User Centred Design is an expression credited to Donald A. Norman in 'The Design of Everyday Things' (1988) however its origins can be traced back to the 1970s concept of Cooperative Design from Scandinavia. The idea is that the user is involved throughout the design process. Users or user test groups are left to their own devices to complete tasks and the stumbling blocks are noted and remedied. The result is also designed with broader user error in mind. For example, what if the user enters a word in a 'date' field?

References to UCD are frequently connected to Human Centred Design (ISO 13407) or Human/Computer Interface design. These practices help create a useful dialogue between the user and the system, rather than the user and the system both shouting over the top of each other: "two monologues do not make a dialogue" (Norman, 2007, p5).

While it sounds applicable to Industrial Design, in my research I've been unable to identify any Industrial Designer who has put their hand up to say: "This is a product of systematic testing with users: my creativity was not the only factor". Famous designers are often quite open about their observations of users and academic research into them (Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, for example) but listening to their feedback appears to be undocumented. While articles making links between UCD and Industrial Design have been published, I have found none that refer to any specific examples and so I believe these articles have no validity in this regard.

Could UCD be applied to Industrial Design? Could there be obstacles other than 'celebrity designer' ego? UCD is a conceptual tool and like any other tool, it may be handled well or badly. The designer's attitude to the user and the designer's motivation for taking on the project could colour the results. According to Lupton (2004) in 'The Birth of the User':

"The dominant subject of our age has become neither reader nor writer but user, a figure conceived as a bundle of needs and impairments - cognitive, physical, emotional. Like a patient or child, the user is a figure to be protected and cared for but also to be scrutinized and controlled, submitted to research and testing."

The user, without their knowledge or consent, is cast in a vastly subordinate role to the designer. Whether the user is actually a patient or the patient's physiotherapist; the designer is assumed to know best about any equipment to be used. While evidence of UCD in Industrial Design is lacking, perhaps involving the user directly could help get away from the "dressing dolly" mentality?

So how could UCD be applied? Unlike computer systems, products are tangible objects occupy space all the time, as opposed to task-specific systems which seemingly appear from nowhere then disappear when we're finished. Operation is only one factor to be considered and while we may be able to plan for a product's use and misuse (the same a s a computer system) what about the storage, maintenance or random events in the user's home, workplace or public space? Are there too many scenarios to test?

Assuming we could test so widely (and a budget for it was available) how could we frame our testing? In his book 'Emotional Design' Donald A. Norman describes three characteristics of design. Visceral: where sensory appreciation is everything, Behavioural: based on the pleasure and effectiveness of use and Reflective: the satifaction of ownership and self-image. Perhaps a pared-down version of UCD for products could be based around these attributes?

Next we'll look at two examples of Industrial Design: could users have been involved throughout the design process?

Dyson DC08
When I first came across the Dyson DC08 vacuum cleaner I was impressed, visually, by the purposeful look that managed not to appear dangerous. There seemed to be colour-coding in play and given Dyson's reputation I was expecting a well-resolved and tested product. I was already half sold on the visceral appeal.



The first problem was finding the three-pin plug amongst all the bulges and crevices - it wasn't visible crouching next to it and I had to roll the body over to find it. Next I had to find out how to power it up - the power switch wasn't the bright yellow that I expected. It was unclear what the yellow parts did as they weren't labelled.

Once I got it started, it made the right noise but didn't pick up any dirt. I noticed the grimey looking barrel was full and eventually managed to release and empty it but it still didn't do what I expected of it. I was told that it needed to be 'serviced' by the user every few months and the person that knew how to do it wasn't around. In operation, there was no significant increase in performance to justify the extra effort. In behavioural terms, I was unimpressed.

The reflective aspect was also a low scorer. I didn't own one so I couldn't comment, but the Ashford-Hatherly family of Beaconsfield, WA had bought a Dyson; been thoroughly disappointed and gotten rid of it within weeks. They were gently admonished by the dealer for not having specified a model that could deal with cat hair.

My opinion is that the Dyson DC08 was not tested by users throughout its development. Most physical objects are tools to perform a task. Some that have complex or potentially dangerous functions, such as cars, can be forgiven for needing to be 'learnt' by the user. I cannot imagine a diverse group of users all finding the power lead and switch without having 'learnt' this machine.

The cat hair scenario raises another issue. A diesel powered vehicle will stop working if the fuel tank is filled with ordinary petrol so they have a 'Diesel fuel only' sticker on the filler cap. At least one Dyson vacuum cleaner would stop working if presented with cat hair which I believe to be less intuitive than the diesel fuel situation, but there were no warnings on the vacuum cleaner. Unlike the litigation-inspired 'do not pour scalding coffee in your lap' warnings, †he cat hair information is, at the very least, a grey-area near the commonsense divide.

Screwpull
This second example is a corkscrew. Instead of relying on the user's strength to pull the cork out, and then their control to limit the 'follow-though' once the cork is released, the screw (bottom left) is wound into the cork through an aperture in the forked collar (upper right). Once the gap between the screw handle and the forked collar is taken up, further rotations draw the cork up the screw into the forked collar until it comes out of the bottle.



On a visceral level the Screwpull is unexciting and only people interested in materials would be engaged by the teflon coating on the screw itself. If every object in the house screamed for attention with wild ornamentation and colours it would become overwhelming, but the Screwpull does have room for more aesthetic development.

The behavioural aspect of the Screwpull is, overall, good; it works flawlessly and without maintenance. The torque is applied through a longer arm than traditional openers and the same motion removes the cork. Around half of the new users needed no instruction, but a small number were completely mystified. The latter usually looked at the flats on the forked collar for some kind of instruction, but none are to be found. Testing during development may have picked up on this.

My reflective response is positive. The Screwpull is easy to use and of simple construction. It uses physics rather than brute force to perform an old task and I like being associated with these attributes.

The Screwpull works well but I don't believe users were involved at every stage of the development. The unfamiliar means used by the Screwpull to perform a mundane task is both its strength and weakness. It is less complicated to operate but only if you know how.

In conclusion we'll address the questions posed at the beginning.

UCD is the practice of involving users at every stage of a design's development. It is relatively recent in the history of manufacturing, appearing midway through the second half of the twentieth century. It is useful, but only not necessarily in every application.

Does it, or could it relate to Industrial Design? I do not believe that UCD is a current Industrial Design practice and that it is very rarely appropriate.

User testing is essential at some stages in product development and preferably conducted by someone other than the designer (to eliminate their egos), but UCD is a separate concept.

UCD (underpinned by HCD) is for computer systems or other information transfer which will be engaged in specific tasks by people who have no other way of performing those actions available to them at that time. Accounting software, wayfinding and vending machine functions are examples where UCD can help. The computer casing, the illuminated sign and the vending machine itself are separate entities.

In the physical world inhabited by products, the variables that might need to be tested are usually vast in number. Extensive user-engaged development may be justified for projects like space-shuttles (specific tasks with a captive audience) but not potato peelers.





Bibliography

Primary
Ownership of Dyson vacuum cleaner by the Ashford-Hatherly family in Beaconsfield WA in 2004.

Use and observation of other users with the Screwpull wine bottle opener by Mark Falvey at 4 Morrison Street, Maylands WA in 2000-2005

Use of Dyson DC08 vacuum cleaner by Mark Falvey at 60 South Terrace, Fremantle WA in November 2004.


Secondary
Fiell, C. and Fiell, P. 2005. Designing the 21st century. Taschen. Köln

Norman, D. A. 2004 Emotional design: why we love (or hate) everyday things. Basic Books. New York.

Norman, D. A. 2007 The design of future things. Basic Books. New York.


Electronic
Euflorium. Dyson - where does it come from? 2009. Retrieved November 16, 2010 from: http://www.preisvergleich.org/pimages/Bodenstaubsauger-Dyson-DC-08-T-Origin_96__587531_60.jpg

Lupton, E. The birth of the user, 2004. Retrieved: February 27 2008 from: http://www.elupton.com/index.php?id=38.

Sundblad, Y. Coop/particip design, 2007. Retrieved: February 27, 2008 from: http://www.nada.kth.se/~yngve/CD-PD-OH.html

User-centred design, 2008. Retrieved: February 27, 2008 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User-centred_design