Design with Intent Toolkit

1. Matt
   May 30th, 2009 at 8:47 am

   Just another example of someone who thinks they know what's best. Contempt flag /on

2. ted
   May 30th, 2009 at 11:16 am

   I doubt I'd call their collection of the obvious as "spiffy". This looks like one of those situations where they needed to write a book and drew straws to see what the subject would be.

3. Dan Lockton
   May 30th, 2009 at 12:28 pm

   Wow - I feel I ought to defend myself but am not quite sure what to say in response to Matt and Ted.

   The point of the research really isn't 'knowing what's best' - it started out trying to identify these kinds of techniques designed into products / systems / environments so that (with a better understanding of how our behaviour's influenced) we could be much more aware of it (and where it's being used against our best interests as users). But there is a potential for applying many of the ideas to _help_ users instead - which is what the research is primarily about: designing things which help users use them in a more effective way (especially in ways which reduce environmental impact).

   Seriously, we didn't 'draw straws to decide what to write a book about'. It's not a book, it's (at least at present) just a set of design ideas and patterns that's intended to help designers working on briefs where user behaviour is important, that I've developed and am testing as part of my PhD.

   Thanks Alex for linking to it.

4. Vonskippy
   May 30th, 2009 at 1:24 pm

   Wow, three WHOLE people to come up with that. Captain Obvious would be sooooo ashamed.

5. Skipweasel
   May 30th, 2009 at 2:03 pm

   For all Dan says, my experience of many everyday objects is that they've been too firmly funneled into making me use them the way the designer intended and not open-ended enough.
   This is most obvious, of course, in toys; even Lego are moving away from generalised stuff that allows you to use your mind towards specialised kits that show you what to make and how to make it.

   I'm always saddened by Lego kits on eBay which have been assembled and then taken apart and kept in the original box with the original instructions. What a narrow existence.

6. ted
   May 31st, 2009 at 8:32 am

   Okay, so you didn't draw straws. Maybe you flipped a coin , instead.

   Don't feel the need to defend yourself, Dan. It's the internet.

   I'm just surprised you're getting your doctorate making a list of other people's design ideas.

7. worksmarter
   May 31st, 2009 at 9:57 pm

   This is great information and I'm very excited to see it in such a structured form. There is an enormous amount of food for thought available here for the amateur designer. I will be revisiting this regularly while scripting macros for a group of the-old-way-is-good-enough-for-me coworkers (the amount of resources and time wasted by their current methods are staggering). I feel fortunate to have this as a casual reference to spark new thoughts - my design partner and I often discuss influencing user behavior for their own benefit. We know how we'd like them to do things, but finding the right balance between gentle persuasion and a grating, controlled interface can be a challenge in some situations.

   Are the naysayers here designers themselves that feel threatened by this simplified information or simply people that don’t design at all and think that producing a flawless final product on the first go is as easy as their morning deuce?

8. Joseph Francis
   June 1st, 2009 at 12:08 am

   The thing is the material keeps talking about design, yet the material itself is so poorly designed.

   Look at the way the text in the illustration above goes edge to edge with no margins at all. That is a CLASSIC example of 'design with intent' when the intent is to discourage the reading of some obligatory text - like the cancer warnings in a cigarette ad.

PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT