A Tale of Two Architects

"design" is inherently about control.”
~Ed Lee

Allow me to tell a story.  This story is fictional, but maybe you’ll find value in it and maybe you wont.  Either way, I'll be honored that you read it. 

Dick and Jane are professional architects, both are excellent at what they do—though they have very different working styles.  One day the Mayor of Chicago invites Dick in Jane to participate in a new park program where each of them will be commissioned to design a children's playground environment and given cart blanche to do whatever they want.  The Mayor encourages Dick and Jane to buck traditional convention and come up with something “innovative”.  The only requirements are that the playgrounds be kid-friendly, accessible and encourage play, socialization and recreation.  In other words a positive and sustainable experience.

Dick and Jane go to work.  Each of them designs—yes DESIGNS a playground environment that is unique, useable, differentiated and just plain cool.  Though each of their designs are different—both encourage meaningful play, interaction, socialization, and recreation.  The Mayor is thrilled as he and his team evaluates the prototyped models of the designs.  He approves both of the designs and production/construction begins immediately.

At the opening of both playgrounds, hundreds of city kids swarm the amazing new playgrounds in delight.  Both Dick and Jane are invited to the events to see their playground designs come to life.

But both designers have different reactions.

As Dick watches the children test out every object, climbing crawling and investigating he finds himself “wincing” inside as he witnesses children interacting with his creation in ways he didn’t predict and doesn’t really approve.  Though he doesn’t want to admit it—it makes him uncomfortable.  A little voice inside his head is quietly saying “no, that’s not how it works—please don’t do that.” and “that’s not how it’s meant to be used”.  Dick smiles along as he watches the children enjoying themselves while deep down inside, he’s disappointed that his creation was not interacted with “appropriately”.  He walks away with mixed feelings.

Halfway across town, Jane is observing the children playing on her playground.  She also experiences a similar phenomenon, but reacts to it very differently.  The children are sliding down things she didn’t design for that.  They’re gathering in areas that were meant to support only small groups.  Jane is surprised, but pleasantly at how the children are playing in her environment.  She begins to take notes.  She’s inspired.  She gets ideas about how facets from this design could be used in some of her other projects.  Though the outcome is different from what she planned and anticipate—she’s thrilled.

"design" is inherently about control.”

So, is design inherently about control?  Maybe to Dick it was.  Maybe for him the validation that he’s a good designer is underscored by people interacting in his environment the way he envisioned them to.  For Jane, it’s the opposite.  She understands that people are unpredictable and she feeds off of the unexpected results.  It makes her better at what she does and inspires new ideas and creativity.  She thrives on it.  Jane would make a good conversation architect.

"design" is inherently about control.”

Are we really so sure that conversations can’t and shouldn’t be “designed”?  Does design = control?  What would the developers/designers of Twitter say about their application which has evolved into something that goes beyond answering “What are you doing?”.  Are they not designers because their application is used in ways that maybe were not predicted?  Sure baking soda can be used to keep refrigerators smelling fresh, which was maybe not the original intent—but somebody concieved, invented and created baking soda. 

Each and every “2.0” application is architected, designed and developed.  Many of these digital experiences facilitate dialogue which manifests itself in different ways.  We the people, the users, the consumers, co-creators and mashers then become the "children" who decide how we want to play and socialize.  We do what comes natural.  But that doesn't mean our playground was never designed in the first place—it was, we just do what children have always done.  We play.  We investigate and interact with our environments.  We improvise and adapt.

"design" is inherently about control.”

I'm not so sure that it is.  And if design is about control, then maybe I shouldn't be a designer.

Comments

[Mario Vellandi]

If I made you a small knife, it's yours. I shouldn't expect you to only use it only for cutting fruit nor within the strict confines of a kitchen.

Intended use guidelines are best advised within the context of safety, heatlh, and product durability. Near everything else is 'control'

[Paul McEnany]

Well said, DA. MySpace is another good example, even if I don't necessarily agree with many of their tactics. It wasn't necessarily intended to be what it is today. But what it was intended to be, made a lot of other things better (much like twitter). Plus, the site wasn't necessarily set up so people could do whatever they wanted with their pages, but this "oversight" made people much more personally connected with their pages. And now, most of their upgrades are in reaction to what their audience is already doing (like video).

[John Young]

Jumping Jehosophat, DA! With your constant, scornful repetition of an attributed (but not directly linked) quote, this is coming off as a flame.

In the context of the comments on your last post, I wonder if the "design == control" thing was being used in a lit-crit, litle-c way (the sculptor makes choices when shaping the stone; those choices are control over the form of the stone, and then the control is shared once the finished object is shared)...

Or if the "design == control" thing was being used in a capital-C way (Those damn kids SUCK if they slide down the back of my dinosaur! Get off my dinosaur, kids!)

I kind of doubt that Ed meant "capital C" control, but I can't tell without a link for context. Perhaps you were referencing a comment from your last post, which seems to have been a much weaker, little-c claim?

There are many interpretations under which capital-C control, as applied in the real world where the user is free to walk away anyhow, is not necessarily a terrible thing. There's plenty of thought out there about how the limitations the designer imposes provide a common space (liminal boundaries, what?) that people can interact in. Here's a link to one example, about how the artificial boundaries of Dungeons and Dragons appeal so much to IT types:
http://tinyurl.com/3creln
D&D, as any nerd can tell you (including me) is ALL ABOUT control. But it's control in service of the user's enjoyment, and that of course is the important bit.

Where the playground metaphor breaks down is that the Internet is not like playground in a crucial way; if kids don't like a playground, they can't just instantly teleport themselves to another one, like Internet users can. Users will ALWAYS have that control, so the designer's choices are not going to be between thoughtful reactor or authoritarian jerk.

The designer's choice is between thoughtful reactor and *irrelevant* jerk :)

[John Dodds]

Design should be about facilitation.

[Lewis Green]

David,

Design is a form of control, but what isn't? This is not a bad thing, it just is. My writing of this comment is a form of control both because of what I say and of what I don't say.

When we design a playground, children are controled by the placement of the equipment, by the boundaries created, and by what is in and what is out. Nothing can be created that doesn't place controls on participants and inhabitants. It a force of the nature of things and the ways that we are.

[Tom Haskins]

Hurray for Jane. As a former licensed architect, I know first hand that this issue of control in your story is true to life. One way to transition "control freak designers" into the fluid space of conversation, community and co-created experiences -- is to consider "user control". By giving control to the user, the designer loses control without the dynamics being out of control or total chaos, This same transition occurs when managers become servant leaders, instructors become group facilitators and marketers becomes storytellers. Excellent post DA!
Tom

[Gavin Baker]

David- In the story when Jane saw her creation being used in ways she hadn't thought of it reminded me of a TEDTalk that I'd just listened to. It's Charles Leadbeater and he basically argues that a lot of innovation and change in design comes from users interacting with the product/design in ways it wasn't originally intended, and that major innovation doesn't have to come from R&D labs. A bit different then your example, but the premise remains creativity [design] is open to everyone. Jane is encouraged by it, while Dick hates it. So the moral of the story is that no one wants to be (a) Dick. Great post.
Check out the video/audio of http://www.ted.com/tedtalks/tedtalksplayer.cfm?key=c_leadbeater

[Ed Lee]

I like your metaphor, my parents are architects and interior designers so it's a good fit in that way.

I'm not sure how well it fits into the conversation we were having yesterday though.

http://darmano.typepad.com/logic_emotion/2007/03/designing_conve.html#comment-63918744

Designing a "playground" is a (relatively) macro concept - you're creating a place to play. Designing a conversation is an extremely micro concept - you're trying to control the entire interaction.

Unless you're Dick?

Ed

[DA]

Ed and all,

Thank you for your thoughts and adding to this conversation. Ed, to your last point—I think John Dodds says it best:

"Design should be about facilitation."

I've never viewed Design in a micro way and maybe that's why this conversation sparks so much debate (a good thing BTW)

What Ed says here:

"Designing a conversation is an extremely micro concept - you're trying to control the entire interaction."

I would say that interactions cannot be controled no matter how hard we try. Good design facilitates. In a macro kind of way. That's my personal POV. Take it with a grain of salt as I am no longer a hands-on designer in my day to day role, but also consider that a birds eye view sometimes allows us to see things that you don't when in the trenches.

[Lewis Green]

David,

Thank you for sparking such great conversation this week. Any time I find myself commenting and then going over my comments again and again in my mind, questioning my very thoughts, I am grateful to the person sparking that thought. In this case, that is you. And in this case, you have given a hand up to designing a conversation. That also is good thing.

[Ed Lee]

So...you can't design conversations; you can only facilitate them?

I'm confused. Isn't that what I said yesterday? Or can't I see that from my "view in the trenches"?

I can't wait for the enlightenment that must come with the bird's eye view.

Ed

[DA]

Ed,

Yes, it's not far off from what you are saying except I am (trying) to make the case that good design is more about facilitation and less about control.

Am I coming off as arrogant? If so, I apologize as it's not my intent. This subject is something I believe in deeply. I've always felt that a hallmark of a good digital experience is that the design of it seems "invisible". Same applies to someone who's a really good facilitator, they are not the star of the show rather allow others to shine.

My comment about a birds eye view is less about you and more about acknowledging that I'm not as hands on as I used to be, so I'm trying to communicate what my personal perspective is, I'm trying to get you to relate to where I'm coming from.

Your last bit about "enlightenment" tells me that you're not a fan of where I'm coming from. That's OK. I have to be true to myself and this is how I feel.

[Webmetricsguru]

Nice post David, I quoted from it on my ArtNewYorkCity.com blog, thinking more in terms of how we, as artists, can't really control what people make of our creations, we can just learn from them.

[Mark Goren]

One of the reasons I read this blog every day is due to your "plan/improvise" theory and that life ends up somewhere in between. Without a doubt, Jane reflects the values of that idea best, which is why you are likely to identify with her most. Plus, we've all likely worked with a guy like Dick before and are naturally unable to root for him.

You've got to roll with things in life. Kudos to Jane for being able to do so.

[Crawford]

What's that sage wisdom....we are powerless over people, places and things. In the end, all we can control is our own reactions.

Happy meandering.