(Not) Using Science Methodology in Interaction Design

A response to Stolterman’s paper on The Nature of Design Practice and Implications for Interaction Design Research

The paper focuses on the Science vs Design Complexity and Designerly thinking vs Design thinking from a rookie point of view. What is it, what is the difference and most importantly, why it matters.

Science Complexity vs Design Complexity

Stolterman argues that Interaction design research has not always been successful because designers are “borrowing” science methodology of research. Even though science methodology is reliable and has been proven to be effective in solving science problems, the same cannot be said when it is applied to design problem, because the complexity of the problems faced is just too different. How?

• Science = General, universal. For science, it is always “Discovery”. Science exist to validate what we know about the world. E.g. We know that when an object falls, it is always downward. But why not upwards? The answer was always there, we just need to find it. When Isaac Newton discovered gravity, we know that this gravity applies to all objects across the earth. Same case for when we discover the elements.

For science, a discovery is almost always something that applies worldwide — a generic discovery.

• Design = Specific, particular. For design, it is always “Invention”. We use our knowledge and discovery in science to craft technology which come hand in hand with the design. E.g. spoon and fork. The purpose of a spoon is for human to scoop up food easily. A spoon is made of aluminium, an element we know from science. This aluminium is then crafted a certain way to make it easy to handle with one hand, to have a scoop big enough for food but small enough to fit a human’s mouth. However, a fork’s purpose is for human to stab and cut slightly hard food. This fork, also made with aluminium, is then crafted a certain way to make it easy to pierce through a food with appropriate size to fit our mouth.

For design, an invention is almost always something that has a certain purpose — a specific invention, for specific user, for specific situation.

Therefore, I agree to a certain extent that science methodology of approaching problems is not the best methodology to approach a design problem, because the complexity and purpose is different.

So what methodology should designer use? Depends on the problem, but the most popular methodology out there would arguably be design thinking.

Design Thinking vs Designerly Thinking

Design thinking is just one of a methodology a designer can use when approaching a problem. Almost every beginner UX practitioner is familiar with this methodology because it is one of the first things we learn as designers.

However, when a designer reaches a certain level where they just know what to do with a design problem, use the right methodology and reach the desired outcome, it is said that they have what Stolterman called “Designerly Thinking”.

Essentially, design thinking and designerly thinking are not the same. After a long read, this is what I conclude:

Designerly thinking refers to the mindset designers have when approaching a problem. It is the competencies that designers have based on their experience. It is almost like a reflex, just like when your foot is itchy, but you don’t think about scratching it, your arms just move itself.

Similar can be said about designerly tools: these are tools where the quality and function has been “approved” by designers.

Will I eventually have designerly thinking if I approach a problem with design thinking methodology? Probably. However I believe that to have designerly thinking does not have to come from using design thinking methodology, but rather an expansive methodology so that as a designer, we know for sure which methodology is best for what problem.

—

(A little out of topic but why not)

Am I using the appropriate methodology in my everyday job?

A question I hope to answer differently in the near future.

Not necessarily. The proper methodology design practice and the reality of my workplace does not really come hand in hand. For starters, most of the features that I was requested to visualise does not involve research and half of the process of design thinking (emphatise, define, ideate). Why?

• Features are “made up” by the product team by the request of the higher ups, not by user needs. This automatically eliminates research, emphatise, define, and ideation process.
• I work with a vendor that does not do wireframes because they already have the design systems ready as Sketch Symbols, so they skip right to Hi-Fi prototyping.
• No user testing — whatever the higher ups approve are good to go. Fellow designers and product team are the judge of Good/Bad UX.

(Thank God we still iterate)

I definitely can’t say for sure that every company does this but I am sure my company is not the only one. No offense to the company, this is just the way we do things. It works, nonetheless.

Is it a bad thing to be skipping the appropriate design steps? Maybe. This way definitely works and save a lot of time and resources, but will probably damage my working mindset as a designer in the long run.

—

This is purely my view on the Stolterman’s paper. Still a novice here, so excuse me for the messy writing and content. If you have a different opinion, let’s discuss!

Special thanks to Yoel Sumitro for assigning this paper in our first mentor-mentee program. Looking forward to the next!