As the designers of user interfaces we have an obligation to not only our clients, but our users and their greater working environment.
In practical terms, Triple Bottom Line Usertarianism usually means expanding the traditional user experience framework to take into account not just user and client satisfaction but the overall user-ecology.
Usertarianism is a broadly inclusive term for the concept that users experiencing software will directly or indirectly affect the nature of their home or working environment – through task accomplishment (aka the Kathy Sierra ‘kick-ass’ factor), increased or decreased stress levels, and time-saving – leading to a positive or negative impact on relationships with work colleagues, friends or family.
In summary – the software we design ultimately becomes part of a users environment… so we’re kind of environmentalists… so we need to practise environmentalism (for users)…
|Sustainability||User Centred Design|
|Conservation||Archiving Content in Context|
|Tree Hugger||Ethnographic Researcher|
|Fuel Efficiency||Task Efficiency|
|Save the Whales||Save the (non-proprietary) Internet|
|Michael Moore||Alan Cooper|
|Nuclear Power||User Meltdown|
|Genetic Engineering||Marketing Agenda|
|Climate Change||Design by Committee|
|Globalisation||Corporation Centred Design|
4 thoughts on “Triple Bottom Line Usertarianism”
Triple bottom line usertarianism? Consideration of users’ broader life goals? Sounds suspiciously like GDD . . 😉
Actually GDD (Goal Directed Design) is about the user’s own goals – but does it consider the flow-on effect? What does acheiving a goal lead to when seen in a collective context? For example: I might achieve my goal by sending out emails to my team to communicate a message – but certain team members might be stressed-out because they’re getting an overload of emails or don’t like the contents of the message. This stress could eminate throughout the office ecosystem – and feed back to me (indirectly) as a negative experience. My working ecosystem (of busy happy harmonious people), has therefore been polluted…
I agree with everything you’ve said . . but I guess I’m wondering whether GDD embraces this concept . . for example if the user’s goal (explicit or implicit) is to not receive negative feedback, then the design should not allow/encourage this to happen. There are also "served personas", but I haven’t seen these used too often . .
I sometimes create "affected" personas too. But as you said, designers need to start actively thinking/designing beyond the user and the user interface – through whatever methodology they see fit – GDD, Usertarianism, UCD – whatever… so long as it’s considered.
Comments are closed.