User-centred design starts with problems – not focus groups
Poor old Rory, he can’t seem to do anything right over at BBC’s dot.life. One minute he’s been told he’s anti-Apple and the next, an Apple fanboy. Theoretical biases aside, his report on Jonathan Ive’s RCA session, “Listening to Mr iPhone” made for further corroboration that designing for people needn’t mean asking those people what they want:
“… how did [Apple] decide what customers wanted – surely by using focus groups? “We don’t do focus groups,” [Ive] said firmly, explaining that they resulted in bland products designed not to offend anyone.
Christopher Frayling reminded us at that point of Henry Ford’s line about what his customers would have demanded if asked – “a faster horse” – and it’s surely true that the point of innovative companies is to come up with products that customers don’t yet know they need.”
Though the solution may not come out of a focus group; the problems certainly do. It is the interpretation of these problems that reflect – as human-centred designers – our skillset, in the same way a keyword reflects perhaps something of a user’s need but not necessarily their motivation. Recently I’ve begun to find myself faced with a long list of requirements from clients who’ve “listened” to their users and are passionately trying to ensure their next online release is the answer to their range of gripes and desires. It’s hard to knock these back and say “the customer’s wrong here” but in quite a few cases they will be. If we don’t we might find ourselves with the antithesis of Ford’s vision, The Ford Mondeo. A car so everyman, so bland and box-ticking that it did nothing spectacular at all – becoming a byword for mediocrity.
Ive doesn’t design mediocrity and the long-held assertion at Apple that the focus group is ineffectual hasn’t done their revenue or sales figures much harm has it?
:: More on how to interpret what users want from what they do/say, in “Desire Paths and Digital Ethnography“
