Through the designs we create, we have the ability to directly influence another person’s behavior. The ethical implications of this are important and not easily definable. I was interested in ethics before I ever considered becoming a designer, but the lessons I learned while studying philosophy impacts the way I view my designs. In nature, our goal is a good one. We strive to help others by improving the interactions that define their life. This drives us to create and innovate new ways of interacting with old concepts. The question remains, do we have the right to influence another person? Further, are there guiding principles we can follow that can keep us on the moral path? The answers to these questions rests on the shoulders of the whole community, not a single person or group.

History Lesson

Christopher Fahey’s blog post ‘Who Watches the Watchmen?‘ was the catalyst that lead me to exploring this topic. What struck me the most about Chris’ post was how the design of the watchclock dehumanized the role of the guard. It turned the guard into just a part of a system by requiring them to visit key locations during their patrol in a set, unchanging, order. Immanuel Kant wrote ‘it is always wrong to treat other human beings as mere phenomena, as objects of your own pleasure or pain. Rather, human beings must always be treated as of infinite worth…’, which speaks to the heart of this issue. It is up to us as designers to ensure that people don’t simply become actors of a system, but real people that have desires, needs, and goals. My response to Chris’ post started on my blog, and eventually moved on to the IxDA Discussion List.

Dangers of Puppet Masters

User Experience, and all of its various children, come from an age when programmers and engineers just built things. These manufactured interactions provided little meaning to end users and caused much pain and frustration. It’s easy as designers to fall into a similar trap of just designing for design sake. Software and hardware become more like art, being an expression of the designer rather than a tool for people. Only these pieces of art can lead people down undesirable paths they neither want or need. This is the real danger of being a Puppet Master.

Unavoidable

Cell phones today are measured by the level of interactivity, not by its ability to make phone calls.

The watchclock, which inspired this investigation, is a system that has direct influence on a person’s behavior. It was built to ensure that security guards were doing their job. What was missing from the design was a consideration for the behavioral need of the security guard to mix things up. The design of an interactive product is an exercise in evaluating current behavior, and putting something in place that supports that behavior or alters it in a more meaningful way.

But, how do we know if what we are designing is ‘good’? Regulations like the US Section 508, a set of policies that any U.S. government website must follow to accommodate web users with disabilities, provides some guidance for web designers. Policies like this have a direct influence on designing interactions for the web, and provide a guiding light for those not sure if they are doing the right thing in terms of accessibility. One unavoidable aspect of interactive products is the simple fact that people do interact with them. By focusing on all the possible good things an interactive product can be capable of, the chances of designing something ‘bad’ can easily be avoided.

Designer Point of View

Only a designer can go into great detail why machines like this are horrible.

Designers are gifted with a certain perspective of the world that can cause much frustration and wonderment. The average person doesn’t have the filters in place to see when they have been ignored by the product they are using. Occasionally, people can tell when something wasn’t designed, but they normally deal with the damages done physically, mentally, and socially. In an attempt to stop the pain, designers create interactions that look to discourage undesirable behavior and promote desirable behavior.

Using our unique perspective, we can learn a lot about what makes a group of people tick. The lessons we learn from them gives us insight into what types of interactions they are really looking for, and how their lives might be improved. Though people have a hard time knowing when they have been ignored by a company, there is instant recognition when they know their voice has been heard. You begin to hear statements like “I love this …” or “I will never use one of those old …. again.” Getting people engaged at this emotional level, and harboring trust between the business and the consumer is a powerful persuasion tool to break undiscovered territory.

Understanding the importance of choice is an attribute of being a great designer. In order to do ‘right’ by the people interacting with our work, they need to know what their choices are, and how those choices will impact them. Making an interaction a success means providing people with the choices for their situations. Providing transparency on what options are available, we allow a person to be free to make up their own mind. People don’t want their choices to be made for them, as this makes them feel powerless and dehumanized.

Influence

An argument can be made that Interaction Design should be called Influence Design. The risk with having lots of influence over an interaction though is it can easily lead to control. We may try to trick the user here and there, but in the end we have to leave the choice in their hands. In a good design, these choices are invisible to the user, but still easily understood. They are road signs we place as someone becomes engaged with the interaction. Clearly defined ‘Exit’ signs are key to giving people the freedom to interact, but not fall under the control of the user.

José Antonio Martínez-Salmerón of frog describes it best in his article ‘The Power of Persuasion’. “No matter how many choices a consumer is faced with, a product that’s relevant, safe, and personally fulfilling will always stand out.” The number of choices available to people are greater than ever today. The challenge is making those choices meaningful and relevant for their life. In the end, a person has to be free to go against what we have laid out for them, even if it means they will use a different product. We are not their keepers, but merely stewards that look to improve the human situation.

We are not their keepers, but merely stewards that look to improve the human situation.

In order to find some ethical guidance around the amount and type of influence designers have, we need only look to the Poka Yoke Principle. We attempt to steer people away from possible accidents, or damage, and lead them towards meaningful experiences. This is a great way to build trust in the people you serve, and trust is the best type of loyalty you can have with a customer because they know you are looking out for them. Having built up this trust, people are more inclined to abandon their bad behaviors, and take up new ones.

Conclusion

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. But, we can’t help influencing a person’s behavior with the interactions we design. Reviews of the interactions we create should ensure that choices are not limited or completely taken out of the hands of people. Being a designer is a true calling, one which drives us to make the world a better place, a more user friendly place. We can’t become overprotective, but rather acknowledge the importance of someone making a mistake, or even completely failing. People learn from their failures, and if we are watching closely we can learn from them too. These lessons help us create and innovate to fix problems of yesterday, and possibly help expose the problems of tomorrow.