Do we need more design or a revolution?
Thoughts from Finland, 30.10.2017
A brief rant from a few days ago following a discussion over the ineffectiveness of involuntary essays as a proxy for learning:
Even the developed world is full of real problems (many of which the underdeveloped world is trying to faithfully replicate), and they cannot be fixed by yet another hackathon, nor is there an app for that. The frivolousness and saturation in innovation are symptomatic of a myopia or even blindness towards real problems pervasive through society and even in the design circles, simply because everyone is too used to the accepted base conditions around.
Now I feel like ranting again after seeing this:
What is the issue? The issue is the “designer’s straight jacket”. Why do hackathons fail? Why do design initiatives fail? It’s common in the software business that designers are brought in late-stage to do “decorative work”, to make things “easier to use” or just “prettier” when all requirements are set.
In the same talk, there was the diagram:
Most often, we land at the waist, the choking point. The specific problem is given. The solution is therefore also roughly given. Just make it prettier.
Let’s look at an example:
The ticketing system of Helsinki’s public transport is notoriously bad. It has a bunch of usability issues. So time to spend some money on bringing in design pros, right? Of course there’s a very elaborate process.
You got personas, you got user stories, you got prototyping, mock apps, user testing and evaluations. Designers do what designers do.
Yet look at the given problem and its assumptions:
- It’s necessary to distinguish zones
- Multi-passenger ticketing is useful enough to warrant confirmation or default path of single-passenger ticketing
- There’s already a touch screen, therefore you must interact with it
Wait a minute, what if a “postage stamp pricing” regime generates similar revenue? It may not, but let’s run some models! After all, ML is hot these days.
What about the joy of use? If you can just tap and it’s done, wouldn’t you enjoy the experience more, because it’s fast and easy?
How much time for productivity is saved for society by waiting for other passengers to fumble through the multi-step touch screen?
What about the societal good will? When people find life easier and themselves happier?
What if we can have an intelligent dynamic postage stamp system that adjust the single-fare according to route and timing?
Look at HSL’s own financial report:
https://www.hsl.fi/en/news/2017/hsl-financial-statements-2016-strong-financial-result-thanks-increased-passenger-numbers
Only about half comes from tickets. And ticketing has its own costs:
“In general, transit authorities spend about 5–15% of their revenues on collecting and processing fares for tickets, on collection boxes, and on equipment maintenance and staff (Smart Card Alliance, 2010).”
Source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2010.12.003
Is public mobility a public good, a worthwhile goal? How should such a goal be funded? Why have the assumption that it should come from net ticketing revenue (quite low margins and efficiency by the look of it)? The other half already comes from subsidies, why not less, why not more? The question then becomes: what kind of society do we want (to live in)?
Designers, untie yourselves.
