Mindful design: what it means and how to achieve it
An SF EPAM Design Studio discussion
Recently, the design team in San Francisco’s EPAM studio kicked off a discussion series to explore various perspectives around interesting topic areas. We started with mindful design, a movement toward being more conscious of the digital noise that designs are creating in people’s lives. We all read an article called: In An Age Of Tech Overkill, Mindful Design Thinking Catches On. Published in Forbes by Joe McKendrick, the article ignited a lot of thoughtful debate about how we as designers can help the users of our experiences be more aware, present, and in control.
In this article, I capture some of the lively discussion between our various team members, across both design and technology roles. Our conversation started in our Slack channel and continued in person.
What is “mindful design”?
Alex: A big topic that’s caused a lot of stir on our Slack channel is whether or not the concept of “mindful design” makes sense to us. Just who is meant to be mindful? Designers or users?
Jen: I think in order to create an experience that will enable users to be more mindful, the designer themselves needs to be mindful in their approach when they’re creating that solution.
I think it would be hard to create a solution that’s mindful in a way that is not mindful.
Kaitlin: Yeah, I agree. It also begs the question: how would you define a user being mindful? Is it that the user becomes conscious about the amount of things they have in front of them, and can choose to eliminate some of this digital clutter? Or is it about the designer eliminating that technology for the user, to perhaps give them that space to be more mindful?
Nick: It depends on the type of product you are designing. If you’re designing an app for Bank of America, it may not need to be a mindful experience, as you often go into the app with a direct need like checking something. On a Facebook app, there is potential to have a mindful option that helps you control your addictive scrolling, if that’s something you want to stop doing. There’s an argument of giving people choice about how much they want to interact. Others may really like being on Facebook for large amounts of time and not see it as a problem.
Kaitlin: That makes sense, but I also see a case for making the Bank of America app mindful. On my banking app I can choose to engage with their planning tool. It’s helping me study my spending behaviors, and it does create an awareness.
Nick: Right, and it ties back to this idea of choice. Not everyone who uses their banking app wants to engage in that way, but it’s nice to have the option.
Jonathan: I agree with your perspective Nick. I think it all depends on the application of the technology and the mindset of the user. For instance, I like certain entertainment experiences to feel disorienting; to lose myself in an environment and even my perspective of who I am. That’s why we create avatars who represent our aspirational selves (with magical powers). I guess we could still be in control but sometimes we want to be taken on a journey by master storytellers.
Alex: It sounds like we’re saying that “mindful design” is about helping users be more conscious and aware of their behaviors, but only if they want to be.
Jen: Yes. If we look at the definition of mindfulness, it’s an intentional awareness of where your attention is being directed. What we’re talking about accomplishes that because it’s giving you the transparency so that you are aware of what’s happening and then you can train yourself to make changes, which is what mindfulness does.
What are the challenges in giving users more visibility into their behaviors?
Alex: There was some good discussion on our Slack channel about tools that help people have this intentional awareness that Jen is talking about. Nick, you mentioned the screen time tool on your phone. Can you tell us about your experience with this?
Nick: Yes. Apple recently created their social time limit tool. If I’m on social channels for more than an hour it pauses them and says “Hey, don’t do it.”
Emma: If we’re talking about limiting social media, shouldn’t the user be empowered to actually do that — just not spend 8 hours a day on Facebook, instead of having to download an app to limit you to an hour?
Kaitlin: I like screen time because you can set all of your own rules. It brought more awareness to me about how many hours per day and per week I am spending on these things. That was then was enough to educate me and make me ask myself:
Is this the amount of time I really want to be dedicating to this or not?
Emma: Doesn’t that take the empowerment away from you, because you’re not seeing the need to make a change yourself? It’s giving you a rule and you can’t get around it.
Jen: I think it’s giving you transparency that you may not otherwise have regarding how much time you’re spending on it.
Vlad: Right, but it might tell me what I’m doing is bad, and I might decide I’m not going to do anything about that.
Nick: Yeah, it works for me but it doesn’t work for everyone. I’ve got a friend who does the limits and just ignores it every time. Then it’s like “what’s the point?”
Jen: We have free will right? To pick and choose — take the advice of the app or not. The power is still in the user’s hands to use our apps in the way that they choose to.
Does using descriptors before or after the word design add value?
Alex: There was a big debate on Slack about adding words to design (e.g., design thinking and mindful design). I’m curious, what do you all think about that?
Nick: Can I start with Theo’s quote from Slack? He said “I don’t think the term ‘mindful design thinking’ is needed. Why do we need the adjectives before design? Is this author saying that unless designers have that adjective at the front, they totally forget about the ‘empathy’ they have towards users?”
Mikhail: From my standpoint, every time I see new terminologies like “smart goals,” I think it helps to emphasize the focus. If we talk about “mindful design,” and it gets us thinking about new features like Apple’s screen-time tool, or other ways we can design to make users more mindful, it’s a good thing. So for me it’s not ridiculous or stupid.
I think it’s very important these days to have a simple design that focuses people on very important decisions to be made.
lurii: I agree with Theo. It should just be called design. It should just evolve. In the past we had a version of design, and now we have a broader vision of design.
Kaitlin: I don’t like terms like “design thinking” because I don’t think they give you enough detail. I think descriptive words can be helpful to explain a point. For example “empathetic design” clearly paints a picture of how you’re approaching it, but “design thinking” is too general — you should always be thinking.
Jen: I think it’s a similar thing to what’s happening with designer titles and how those have evolved over the years. If I’m a general “experience designer,” am I expected to have all of the skills that designers can have? Perhaps putting that adjective in front of the word “design” helps to define clear boundaries of what that includes. Maybe we’re saying that not everything is mindful design. It’s a portion of design.
Mikhail: I think that’s correct, not all design is mindful; especially for social games and applications. For example Netflix does everything they can to guide you to the next show, so that you continue spending more time there. For some games, they hide everything from the screen, like the amount of money in your virtual pocket, in order to not disrupt you from the experience.
lurii: Right, very similar to how casinos are designed in Vegas.
Jonathan: Agreed. I think that in commercial and transactional experiences, we sometimes lack mindful design. That’s when we can find “dark patterns” arising; some of which are intentionally deceptive to encourage behaviors favorable to commercial goals, and unfavorable to end-users. In this case, ethical designers ought to promote the practice of mindful design.
Do we tend to default to the latest technology for every solution to make it “innovative”?
Alex: Last question. The article talked about how often we go to the latest technology when we try to ideate new experiences, and that maybe there are ways to solve problems without technology. Do you find that this is something you experience?
Jen: Definitely. That is a really good point. And maybe we should think about how we take things back down to the basics. I think it could be very interesting to incorporate different ways of approaching problems, similar to some strategic physical product design methods that exist, rather than just going into: “Ok how can we bring AI or machine learning into this?”
Alex: Right, there might be innovative methods that don’t even involve complex technology. In a lot of ways I think this ties back to the concept of service design. It forces you to think of touch-points that aren’t always purely digital, such as having a conversation with someone.
Oleksii: I am trying to find a case where technology is not better. For example when I do my taxes, it’s much better to go to TurboTax or Credit Karma rather than sending them in via mail. It’s a pain. I have Facebook messenger and that is more convenient for everybody, rather than calling. I can’t think of a case where technology doesn’t help.
Kaitlin: Right now I am working with a team in which none of us are co-located. Things take longer because you have to schedule a call and talk to them vs. tapping them on the shoulder. It’s also harder to hear when we are talking on the phone, and when we don’t have the opportunity to talk things through or draw things out more quickly.
Technology didn’t help, because it made people say “We don’t need designers to be sitting side by side anymore, and that’s ok.”
Alex: Agreed. On a related note, I once worked with a team that had a physical whiteboard they used to share work progress, and they liked going there so much more than their digital Confluence site. Even the way we often use post-it notes in our studio is an example of how we often need to get out of technology to do great work.
Emma: Maybe because when it’s physical you’re using your brain more. When Matt and I go to the super-market, I have a written list. It’s exactly the same as the list that’s on his phone, but every single time he misses something and I don’t. It’s because I tick every thing off as I go around.
Final Thoughts
It became clear through our studio discussion that there are multiple ways to look at mindful design.
From the perspective of the designer, it’s about being mindful of the user and considering what is best for them in the longer term. This means having to step outside of simply creating experiences that are intuitive and engaging, and instead considering ways to benefit the user’s overall well-being. At the same time, designers must provide freedom for the user. As Nick and Jonathan pointed out, it’s important to create options. While some users want to be fully immersed in an experience for extended periods of time, others may want alternatives that help to support healthy choices. There is a great deal of opportunity for this, especially in industries such as finance and healthcare.
From the perspective of the user, mindful design is about helping users be more mindful through increased awareness of their behaviors. This could mean purposefully adding friction to an experience, or highlighting key information that is beneficial to the user, even if it makes the experience less clean and simple. The trick is designing this in a such a way that doesn’t feel too forceful. As Emma suggested, incorporating too many rules into digital experiences can become intrusive and belittling. The more control users have over their app’s rules (e.g., how much screen-time to target each day), the more likely they are to follow them and reach a point where such nudges are no longer needed.
We don’t all agree on whether the term “mindful design” is truly needed, but we do all agree on the importance of considering the well-being of users and also empowering them. As a studio, our goal is to focus on the user’s needs and explore all possible solutions, not just those that leverage the latest and greatest technology. We’re excited to take this thinking about mindful design into our daily work.
Follow-up Activity: Screen-time Data Exploration
Given how much the topic of screen-time came up in our discussion about mindful design, we decided to follow up with an exploration of ways to reflect on this data and derive meaning from it.
Nick was kind enough to share a week’s worth of his screen-time data with Jen Lebeau, a Lead Experience Designer in the studio. After discussing the data together, they found that it gave Nick a new awareness of the context of his screen use, as well as key information about his habits.
Contextual Awareness
Nick was able to reflect on the reasons used his phone more or less frequently at different points throughout the week, and also how his digital consumption differed from previous weeks. For example, Nick found that when his wife was out of town, a big football game streaming, or getting a seat on the bus during his commute all impacted his digital usage. Going forward, he can think about what drives his screen-time and make a conscious decision about what behaviors he wants to keep or discontinue.
Changing Habits
Nick was also able to reflect on his habits. He noticed, for example, that his Instagram pickups (number of times he visited Instagram) were much higher in comparison to the other apps he uses. He often checks Instagram unconsciously, almost through muscle memory, rather than as a result of a conscious decision to open a new message or alert. This helped him consider ways that he can try and be more conscious of his choices in the future.
Overall, Nick and Jen found it fascinating to explore screen-time data and how it can be presented in a way to better support mindfulness.
Further Reading
To continue exploring this topic, below are links to related content that our team found interesting:
Humane by Design —Provides tactical ways to make mobile designs more humane, using principles such as empowering, inclusive, and transparent.
Is Tech Too Easy to Use? — Explores how convenience in technology can become a detriment to the user.
Report: Retailers have zero clue what shoppers really want — Discusses how the pursuit of the latest innovation in technology in the retail sector is often at the expense of user needs.
