Treat others as we want them to treat us
This has been part of our societal DNA for millennia. From a perspective of evolving civilizations, it was progressive and generous. From a modern context, the intent and the words out of sync with our values and how we behave - and that is arguably a very good thing. Is there another paradigm - a better big idea to follow - that better reflects our current values and approach to design?
This is not how we normally behave, much less how we believe we behave. We call others by the names with which they identify. We offer gifts we hope will meet their needs or tastes. We offer our guests choice. We consider good manners those that reduce stress or help others feel comfortable.
Treat others as they want to be treated
That is closer to what we normally practice. This is based on countless generations of experience and wisdom. It is known as the Platinum Rule.
While the Golden Rule can be found in ancient writings in numerous philosophies and religions around the globe, the concepts behind the Platinum Rule first appeared in the mid-20th century writing with the name coined in 1979 by sociologist Milton Bennett in Overcoming the Golden Rule: Sympathy and Empathy. Key to this thinking was acknowledging that people are different than us, and that “through empathy, we at least can be aware of how others would like to be treated from their own perspectives.”
Empathy is defined as understanding the emotions or perspectives of another. It is a communication skill, not an emotion unto itself, althought it frequently stimulates emotional responses. Emotions stem from how well our wants and needs are met, and frequently our wants stem from our underlying needs to survive, function, and grow – our bodies, minds, and relationships.
Understanding another’s perspectives and emotions is foundational to successful marketing and advertising. Those disciplines understand the power of aligning message and story with their audience’s emotions. Do designers? it is debatable to what degree many creative people do.
Were the emotional impacts or user engagement considered or respected in this iconic Brutalist building designed for people?
Was user comfort or safety a consideration in these shoes?
There are many notable examples where designers have failed, some of the more successful were (or are) grand egoists, and while genius and skilled at creating, not necessarily listening and finding fit with those who experience the design process or outcome.
When it comes to experiential design and user-centered design – both critical when designing for physical, social, or emotional health – the approach is one that seeks to consider and even prioritize the needs of those for whom the design is being implemented above all others, including the designer. It appears there are increasing numbers of designers who embrace and excel at this approach.
We are at a time when we are becoming truly aware of the power humans wield and of the impacts of our actions – both positive and negative - to shape our built, social, and natural environments. Frequently, this power is realized through design. One of our societal arcs is a tendency towards greater empathy (again, a connection, not an emotion). The Platinum Rule applies to both.
Why is it important?
Engagement provides more information, frequently hidden or forgotten, and sometimes conveys information of importance and relevance. That directly contributes to greater efficiency in functionality, approvals, and support. It generates more interest, a sense of ownership, greater care, reduced damage/vandalism, resource conservation, ecological protection, and more. It may not save time at the beginning, but if the end goal is a design that meets certain human needs, it is likely to result in more effective attainment. Engagement - even just being asked to participate - can have positive impacts on those being asked and affected by the end result. The resulting sense of belonging and creation of places and things that attract and are deemed "attractive" and "valuable" - both are known to enhance prosocial behavior and safety.
Where is it most important?
It is hard to imaging a place or space for humans where it would not be useful and important in design outcomes - functional, relational, or experiential. It aligns with the tenets of justice, equity, diversity, inclusion, and belonging: JEDI+B. Without user input, the only perspectives and worldviews are going to come from the design leaders. Given humanity's diversity, and the very few who normally control the design, there will inevitably be a mismatch.
What should a designer consider?
From the outset, the design process should be one of engagement, starting with identifying the who, where, when, and how to engage. Those would emerge from the needs of the “stakeholders” as defined by them: the users and those who will experience the design and its impacts (or at least authentic representatives of them).
How does it manifest in design outcomes?
One where those who experience the design as a user, a passerby, or even one impacted indirectly has a positive interaction; where their physiological, cognitive, functional, ergonomic, sensory, social, and emotional needs are met, in part or in full. There is a strong case for widening the scope of consideration beyond the directly human to the natural environment and the ecosystem we both depend on and threaten with our designs. Beyond the immediate human needs, what are our long-term needs, and how are they really different from our planet’s?
What are some examples?
Belts are a long-established example that from inception were specifically designed to be adjusted by the user to suit their needs, comfort, and image.
Some companies and industries excel at designing for the end user in terms of ease, comfort, and visual appeal, such as this smart phone. As an object and interface it was not designed not only for the user, but its purpose as shown is to to personalize the user's environment. Its digital interface can even ask the user what the user would like, or how it can help.
The image below illustrates four distinct messages and design approaches.
From right to left, the gradient is from historic to current, from formal to informal, from private to public, from single statement to interactivity, and from permanence to change:
Brick building: formal and makes a statement of formality and permanence with a protective canopy that provides shelter while claiming the public sidewalk.
Grey building: in its current form, minimizes its own presence as a building in favor or providing transparency to the goods and services within; its recessed entry provides weather protection while inviting passersby to enter.
The mural: painted on the wall facing the pedestrian plaza, its permanent art tells a story about the community.
Street chalk and paint: highly informal and wmultiple contributors, it conveys clear messaging about current events and social advocacy.
In my own field of designing learning environments, learner-centered and inviting design has made a strong toehold. The images below illustrates how far things have progressed in the classroom.
Old school message: "Here is what you are provided. Do not move. Do not interact. Do not engage."
New school message: "Move and interact how you want and need."
Design is an endeavour to implement a concept or convey a message. Even in final form, it is a continuous process of linking goals with results. Success is as varied and changing as those who interact with it. When designing for people, there are few absolutes or ultimate conclusions, and no one size that fits all. In our exponentially increasing levels and opportunities for connectivity of people, places, systems, and information, the empathic mindset that is the very essense of the platinum rule is increasingly important. Why not embrace a paradigm that reflects and reinforces this>? When incorporated into design, the outcomes might be better than golden.
copyright 2023 ross parker
Keyword: Engagement