Dan Lockton, David Harrison, and Neville A. Stanton came up with this spiffy idea: The Design with Intent Toolkit v.0.9, a set of design principles with the aim of influencing user behavior.
The trio cover a wide range of design principles including how to encourage users to do something; guide them as to how to do it properly; and how to reduce errors by limiting choices and so on. There are even ways to subtly or not-so_subtly discourage users from doing what you don't want them to do.
You may think as some of these principles as obvious and common-sensical, but the hallmark of a great product is exactly that it can be used by people armed only with common sense.
Take, for instance, the way to influence user's behavior through the use of segmentation, spacing, and orientation:
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.