Our practice of human-centred design often grapples with a paradoxical question: “By designing for everyone, are we inadvertently designing for no one?” This post aims to dissect this conundrum, exploring the pitfalls of designing for an ‘average’ user, examining the balance between quantitative and qualitative research in UX design, and deciphering the complexity of individual human behaviours and decision-making processes.
The Pitfalls of Average-Based Design
Designing for an average user is common shortcut (even where an average is a persona), but history provides compelling evidence of its limitations. The U.S. Air Force’s 1950s endeavour to redesign aircraft cockpits for the ‘average’ pilot led to startling revelations. Researcher Gilbert S. Daniels discovered that none of the pilots conformed to the average across ten measured dimensions, highlighting the diversity in human physicality and producing a cockpit which, literally, suited no-one. This example resonates profoundly in digital design, where interfaces and experiences cater to an even broader spectrum of cognitive and emotional diversity. When design targets the average, it often misses the mark for most users, leaving out those who fall outside the narrowly defined average parameters.
The Role of Research in UX Design:
In UX design, data-driven insights are invaluable. Quantitative research, with its large-scale surveys and analytics, offers a bird’s-eye view of user behaviour, identifying common patterns and trends. This approach, however, can overlook the rich, nuanced experiences of individuals. Qualitative research fills this gap by delving into the subjective, personal experiences of users. Interviews, focus groups, and ethnographic studies offer a deeper understanding of the motivations, frustrations, and desires that drive user behaviour. Balancing these two research paradigms is crucial in creating digital experiences that are not only statistically sound but also emotionally resonant and personally relevant. Of course, comissioning proper quantititve research is a much harder challenge with our clients than using online tools to gobble up the quant or semi-qual research that gives us only part of the picture.
Understanding the Fluidity of User Decision-Making:
The variability in human behaviour is strikingly evident in decision-making processes and something we’ve become quite obessed with in my world of automotive consumer behaviour. Consider the journey of purchasing a premium car. Initially, a prospective customer might be driven by impulse and aesthetics, attracted to sleek designs and innovative features. However, as the decision process evolves, practicality takes precedence. The customer mindset evolves, they begin to weigh technical specifications, practicality, economy, customer service reputation, and value for money. This transition from an exploratory to a pragmatic mindset within the same individual illustrates the fluid nature of decision-making. It also contrasts sharply with the variability across different user demographics, where factors like age, cultural background, and technical familiarity significantly influence purchasing behaviour. It’s why my team and I don’t work with demographic personas and instead talk about the motivations and needs of a customer at specific stages in the customer journey.
Embracing Flexibility and Inclusion in Design:
To address this complexity to any degree, designers must pivot towards creating flexible and inclusive interfaces. In practical terms this involves designing for a range of abilities, knowledge and preferences, ensuring that digital products are accessible and usable by as many people as possible, reflective of how they will change. Techniques like progressive and responsive design, which allows content to adapt to different screen sizes and orientations, and adaptive user interfaces, which can adjust to a user’s specific needs and preferences, are essential. Personalisation also plays a key role, offering users the ability to tailor their digital experiences to their unique tastes and requirements and for content providers to reflect the journeys and interactions we know users have already undertaken. This might mean that the product page we show you the first time you visit us is presnted in quite a different way to the one you see in subsequent visits, or if we learn something more about you from other interactions.
TL/DR; Conclusions:
The challenge of designing for a diverse and dynamic user base is daunting yet rewarding. By recognising and embracing the multifaceted nature of human behaviour and decision-making, designers can move beyond the limiting concept of the ‘average’ user. Integrating both quantitative and qualitative research, acknowledging the unpredictability of human behaviour, and adopting principles of flexible and inclusive design, are key to creating digital experiences that resonate on a broader scale. In doing so, we not only make our designs more accessible and relevant to a wider audience but also acknowledge and celebrate the uniqueness of each individual. This is the essence of true human-centred design – where every user matters, and design is a reflection of the breadth and depth of human diversity.
John Gibbard 