This week we read Chapter 7: Social Design from Artful Design by Ge. I’d like to reflect on a couple of specific principles and ideas in more depth.
Designing for people we know
Ge states that, at least when it comes to designing for people we know, that “technology should strive to get out of the way of human interaction.” While I’ve certainly thought about audience when it comes to design, I hadn’t really considered designing for strangers vs. people that we are already close to or familiar with. At least, not outside of designing things for friends that is obviously for them because of the presence of in-jokes or other pre-existing context. Ge states that when designing for close friends or family, all you need is a conduit — anything more than that might actually get in the way (or is at least not necessary), since there is already so much rich context for those people to explore with each other. I think there is truth to this idea, but I think to some degree it depends on the kind of thing that you’re designing rather than who your audience is… in some sense, any technology that is meant to be used regularly will likely also strive to be a minimal presence people’s lives. Things that we interact with frequently are meant to be woven into the backdrop of our existence.
I can imagine some experiences meant to be shared among close friends that are also very directed — this is typically only true of things that are intended to be singular experiences. A video game can be this, perhaps a movie(?), an escape room, or a tabletop board or card game. In these cases, there is a particular kind of experience that the designer is intending for you to have (at least for the first few I mentioned), and the directed nature of the experience is what makes it so good. I think perhaps I’m getting further away from the original point here, but mostly I just wanted to express some skepticism that familiarity was the main/only driver in whether technology should “get out of the way” when facilitating a social interaction. But the more I think about it, the more I feel like technology can direct you and should also strive to get out of the way, because otherwise how are you going to meaningfully connect to another person if you have no agency in the interaction? Thinking about a wonderful series called Interviews in VRChat as I type this.
Principle 7.7 A little anonymity can go a long way: design “anti” social and omni-social networks
Which also ties into the next principle I wanted to speak on — Ge states that “a little anonymity can go a long way” when designing social interactions. Sometimes our identities can get in the way of expressing ourselves, i.e. through social expectation or judgment from people that already know who we are. However, as is apparent from Interviews in VRChat, identity is not necessary for human connection. You can have a very meaningful connection with someone in the absence of identity, through shared present or past experience. And that isn’t even to say that you must have past experiences in common for them to be meaningful — simply sharing your experiences (verbally, through writing, video, some other medium) with another person is enough.
Another thing that I won’t speak on due to time constraints but that I’d like to take note of: “Not everything worthwhile is a problem to be solved.”