A recent article by Jon Kolko, ACD at frog design, hits on some interesting commentary about designers’ reach in the culture. However, these ideas are not new, and as mentioned in some of the comments, the idea of giving up control or the idea of building frameworks isn’t new either. I also agree with some of the comments that point out the hollow portrayal of UX designers’ motivations. That said I do commend the urgency to change how experience is perceived.

What Guides Design Conscience?
In this perfect world where a designer’s reach is recognized and understood to be global, and the results of their decisions eternally impactful on the culture, what truly guides the conscience of the marketer or designer? Not to devolve into a commentary on capitalism alone, because that would be long and boring. And the emerging consensus seems to support the idea of profitability and responsibility being inevitably linked, as we literally run out of chances to make irresponsible choices with product design and marketing.

The Ethics of It All
However, responsibility is most commonly understood today today as a holistic understanding of the product lifecycle, true costs, environmental impact, sensitivity to cultural issues, compassion, honesty and dialogue with the consumer. What doesn’t get touched on as often is the ethical significance of the reach itself.  The author states: “Both the bad and good are our ongoing fault and responsibility.” Consider a responsible design with a wide and echoing reach, with “no beginning and end.” What are the criteria for it being responsible? As the author states, the lasting effects of this design aren’t finite or known, each experience is unique. Can reach itself be irresponsible?

During a conversation on this topic a friend said, “Don’t go all Prime Directive on me.” (I needed my memory refreshed that this was a Star Trek reference to observation without interference.) So in the case of a responsible product…say a lifesaving product, or even a planet-saving product, most would argue that to observe such a directive would be directly irresponsible. But what about the majority of products and experiences? Will all of the “bad” products be Naturally Selected out? What about the consumer’s responsibility to avoid perpetuating “bad” products and experiences? Should we only hold the designers and marketers accountable?

An Exercise For Thought
While the author points out the fallacy of a finite experience, it seems to me it might be an interesting exercise for designers to try and design experiences that truly do have a beginning and end. Or perhaps a reductive exercise where we subtract the experience or product from the culture, or even actively prevent it from reaching the market. Is there a value to limiting our reach? Is it even possible? With the advent of seamless branded entertainment and lifestyle experiences, expansive offerings from the brilliant mind of Ashton Kutcher… I truly wonder if branded literature is next. (Or is it here already?) Is it possible that giving up control, working toward transparency and creating frameworks is simply the same old brand of consumerism, albeit a more stealthy and powerful means to the same end?

Thanks to Karri Ojanen for the link and discussion starter.

Nick Sternberg