User-Based or Human-Centered Design.... A Comparative Essay

In thinking about the topic this week, I examined two principles in Information Design: User-based and Human-centered information design. Now whereas it seems like the two terms are synonymous, their approaches are significantly different. At base, both have public consumption in mind. However, whereas the user-design model is much more generic in its approach, human design is more specific.

First a disclaimer… 

I see the merit in both approaches, although my core values due to my own personal experiences make me lean more toward the human design methodology. The user-based information design model is more Socretial in its approach, where the need for a product will drive its meaning towards a specific population. This need can include subcategories such as: lifestyle, economic disposition, profession, etc. In my opinion, it’s more generalized- a sort of one size fits all- mentality, and for large-scale services, it works. In a lot of ways, its value is also based on cost. Certain organizations and corporations are good for this, where negating the consumer experience entirely and only addressing any major concerns due to declining sales, poor reviews, or a potential uprising/riot are the only way they see or acknowledge an issue.

The problem is in the solely scientific approach used to gauge public opinion. As Nathan Shedroff said when he spoke in an interview with Singularity University in 2018, "Design is a set of processes that accentuate qualitative values paired with traditional business tools that measure quantifiable results, then you have a complete picture of opportunity, customer need, and how you can build better products and services [...] which has been missing from most companies." So by taking a somewhat scientific approach in asking key questions such as: What are the needs, processes, limitations and ultimately I'm sure, risk assessments, they manage to leave themselves room for improvement to see what works, what doesn't, what to try and what to discontinue. By setting those priorities in order, they give themselves a foundation, no matter how short-lived (or long-term) it might be. This is where human-centered design actually has an edge, since their core value is to get the product to the people thus creating a partnership of sorts with their target market.

Maya Angelou once said, ‘People will often forget what you said, but they will always remember how you made them feel'. This is the human-design approach in a nutshell. The primary goal seems to be to market a product made for the people with the public’s input. The term coined by the late, Michael Coolley, helps not only to save money where production is concerned, but gives the public a personal stake in the success of a product or service. A partnership between the consumer and the inventor(s) builds a level of trust because they are being heard in what they see, need, what they think, how useful the product will be, and a reliability in that the customer is not wasting their money by buying something they thought was for one purpose, but not even close to what is expected of the product.

One of the companies famous for this kind of approach was Daymond John’s FUBU Corporation, which catered to the hip-hop community in a way companies like Nike and Adidas didn’t regardless of the popularity of their products. The creation of that company spawned other companies such as Phat Farm and later Roc-A-Wear and Sean John, which gave inner city kids a way to see people who grew up in their own neighborhoods- or those like them- being successful in their own rights, and the people of those neighborhoods gladly helped to make the brands what they all have become today. This one-hand-washes-the-other mentality gives a much needed control over where a customer spends their money, or expounds their energy when the need arises, especially when it comes to advertising. No doubt, word of mouth can sink an empire faster than any product war ever could. So consumer input is invaluable, particularly when used as a preventive measure for minor glitches as opposed to an economic fire extinguisher because the problems are blazing out of control.

In conclusion, there are many companies who use one business model over the other. And whereas there isn’t one approach that’s better than the other, I think combining the science behind the user-based approach and the empathy used to make the human-centered approach my favorite between the two, would give any company an edge in the competitive corporate sector. Number one, it would keep costs down, and secondly, it would give consumers a way to voice their opinions about the product before they hit the assembly lines, thereby keeping costs and public discontent to a minimum. Believe it or not, the only company I’ve seen successfully combine both the user-based scientific methodology as well as the human-centered services approach to providing information to the public- whether affected directly by a developmental disability or not- has been Autism Speaks, which helps parents such as myself find creative solutions to problems often based on medical and behavioral research, while informing others about events or services available in other areas of care. I hope other companies/corporations catch on and begin to implement these two ideologies to really make the difference they often laud as their core reason for existing beyond the boardroom and their bottom line.   

"TEDxTaipei 2011 - Nathan Shedroff." YouTube, uploaded by TEDx Talks, 11 May 2011 ,https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9srqfiug8A. 

Singularity University 2018- Nathan Shedroff "Design Strategy" YouTube, uploaded by Singularity University https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Erc-pUYHbKI