Before this class, I felt confident as a designer and HCI student. I went into the quarter feeling like the content might be a good practice or reminder of my HCI and design classes from the past– I felt like I knew what good design was, how to build strong solutions, and what ethical and inclusive implementation looks like. As always, that is never the case, and I was glad to learn so much in my final quarter of HCI classes on campus from the teaching team.
I really appreciated the depth we explored in designing for behavior change, markedly distinct from the lessons we learn in 147 and other HCI classes. I wished that these lessons, around tiny prompts or the ties between motivation and triggers, were explored earlier in my HCI education. It expands product thinking to consider the full context of a problem space, as we explored through different mapping techniques. Connection circles, fishtail diagrams, journey maps, and journey maps will be a part of my design processes moving forward.
I began to reconsider my past design projects– isn’t every design project a behavior change project? I found myself thinking this in every discussion we had, especially those on the ethics of nudges and manipulation in design. Isn’t every design project a practice in persuasion? We as designers create experiences and visuals because we think that is a “good” way for people to engage with information, the world, and themselves. We shape thinking and doing and dreaming; this is my favorite part of being a designer. I know this is quite simplistic to say, so I appreciate the concrete guidance given around when nudging becomes manipulation– metrics such as whether the user buys into an experience, and whether they have agency in exiting it even after they consent. It reminds me that good design is kind and empathetic. Throughout the quarter, I’ve also started to see technology and design as somewhat of a friend. We pour thought and love into a design itself, but perhaps that design should also make users feel seen and cared for itself, not just as a product of someone’s intention.
Something that I’ve thought about often, beyond this quarter of behavior change, is how to properly test designs meant for the long term in the short term. I wonder what these practices look like in industry or research. The long term effects or learnings from an app seem beyond the scope of what can be illuminated by a short term study. In this class, as well as in 147, 278, and most other design classes, we learn to “experience prototype” and “assumption test”, but it always feels lacking. Is doing our best good enough, and should deploying any type of prototype be most important in getting feedback? How long should that prototype be tested for in order to validate results?
In terms of my team’s project, WasteNot, I am very proud of the final product and how much genuine fun we had in making it. Studying behavior change truly taught me how to design for motivation beyond just a target goal or situation– we intentionally thought about the core issue behind food waste, which in our studies was shown to be a lack of agency, and focused on addressing that root cause. Doing so taught me to reevaluate what types of problems I want to focus on, and continue to be critical of the way I am addressing them. However, I would like to redesign the app to be a little more novel. We constrained ourselves to what I see as a fancier Yelp / food menu app, and I wish we had explored more creative ways to address agency over food while we had the chance. That tension between novelty, creativity, feasibility, and effectiveness is one I will always grapple with, and I’m glad to have gotten another chance to ponder it through this class.
Taking 247B this quarter has been a wonderful reminder of how much more design there is to learn and explore. I’ve really appreciated our discussions with the teaching team, and having our ideas trusted and fully engaged with. Have a wonderful spring break! <3
