Er, I meant “…in a way contrary to the way their boss chose…”

As the author of the referenced article, I want to note that I did not imply that the watchclock’s aggressive and controlling posture was in any way a bad thing.

In fact, I will somewhat controversially question the implied thesis of your piece, Brad: That controlling other people is inherently bad, and that giving other people freedom is inherently good. There is Jared’s example where parents and medical professionals seek to enforce their will on children, of course.

Similarly, in the watchclock example, we are talking about another perfectly socially-acceptable power relationship: a contractual agreement between an employer and an employee. There is nothing deceptive or forceful in this equation. The behavioral control implicit in the system is not an example of a system violating an individual’s rights or dignities. It is, in fact, intended to prevent the watchman from violating their side of the agreement.

There is no reason why an employee should see fit to execute their security duties in a way that their boss chose to implement the security system. If the boss thought that allowing their night watchmen to roam freely about the premises and use their judgement about where and when to observe, they would simply make that their policy and not buy into an elaborate watchclock system. They’d probably also have to hire much more skilled and expensive guards, too. And pay a lot more for their insurance policies.

Some employers try really hard to give their employees a greater sense of freedom, thinking that it will encourage better performance from them. They want their team to not feel like cogs in a machine. But the sad truth is that some jobs are quite simply cog jobs. And even if it were true that all humans perform better when given freedom (which is clearly not true), an employer who thought otherwise would be guilty of poor judgement, not of oppression.

(It’s ironic that you cite Poka Yoke as an example, because Poka Yoke is in reality the one bright shiny part of an otherwise dreary system where every other movement and action of each employee is strictly controlled and measured as much as the robots that surround them. Poka Yoke is not a recognition of human dignity and creativity and freedom — rather, it is a recognition that some tasks (error detection) are, at least for now, unable to be performed by machines.)

While your idealism regarding human dignity and freedom is admirable, I am afraid it disregards the great many contexts in life (such as employment) where these values are justifyably, er, devalued.

To object to this system is to object to the very existence of power relationships in which one human has power over another. While such power relationships are at times unfair and even evil, I simply cannot agree that this is objectionable in all instances. And certainly not in the watchclock example.

Thanks for digging deeper into this, Brad. Lots of stuff there to think about.

It appears that we have painted ourselves into a corner. Having direct control over another person’s behavior is wrong, as they did with the watchclock.

Wrong is a strong judgement.

For years, dentists have been trying to convince parents to help their children brush longer. Longer teeth brushing sessions directly correlate to better oral health and fewer cavities. Yet, the dentists failed to make any progress.

Then Dr. John’s Products released a line of children’s power toothbrushes. (Subsequently acquired by Proctor & Gamble.) The battery powered devices only have an On switch and automatically turn off after 3 minutes. The 3 minute run time forces the child to brush the entire period. Children who use the toothbrush regularly demonstrate substantial better long-term oral health than children who don’t.

The design of the toothbrushes explicitly influences the behavior of the child, guiding them to better oral health.

Is that wrong?

Mint.com shows users their spending and investing habits in a way that, for many users, changes their behavior to spend more consciously and invest more savings.

Is that wrong?

Sacremento’s Municipal Utility District found that when they put smiley faces on the bills that of residents who outperformed 100 of their neighbors in homes of similar size that used the same heating fuel, those households reduced energy use by 2%. The design of the bills influenced the energy use of those individuals.

Is that wrong?

I’m not getting how directly influencing behavior is wrong.

Jared

@Laura – Bottom line, it will always be the people who use the design product. If you don’t have users, guess what? You’re out of a job. That scenario could be what will always keep us from becoming true ‘puppet masters’.

@ Adrian – Users owning the experience is an interesting concept, one I would love to explore more. Regarding context, it can be subverted though. The bow and arrow had a great utility for bringing down game, until someone thought to use it against their neighbor. So the question becomes, should we pay more attention to the outliers that could use our design badly and put some effort into preventing that scenario.

@Brian – How much should designers look out for users? Is it ok that we stand aside and let a user burn their hand a time or two on the stove so they learn the dangers of a hot surface? Or try to prevent the situation all together? Perhaps the old standard holds true, UXD is meant to improve the human condition. I would take it a step farther though, and add UXD shouldn’t coddle human nature.