Natural selection is a theory of local adaptation to changing environments. It proposes no perfecting principles, no guarantee of general improvement. —Stephen Jay Gould

evolutional ux

The goal is not degraded experience, however graceful, but differently adapted experience. In other words, it's not necessary that one version of a design be best.

I subscribe to the school of evolutional design. In evolution, species change not to reach for some progressively-closer-to-perfection goal, but in response to each other and their ever-changing environment. My user experience must do likewise.

Rather than reach for pixel-perfect, which is relatively unattainable outside of print, (and is probably only "perfect" to myself and possibly my client), I reach for what's best for my users, which is in the interests of my client. I expect that "best" to change as my users change, and as my client's services/products change. This approach makes it much easier to design for UX.

Part of evolutional design is stepping away from the graceful degradation concept. The goal is not degraded experience, however graceful, but differently adapted experience. In other words, it's not necessary that one version of a design be best. Two or three versions can be equally good, so long as the experience is valuable. Think of the differences simply resizing a window can have on well-planned liquid design, without hurting usability. Are the different sizes bad? Of course not.

Those who complain that this hurts design are limiting their understanding of design. Design operates at many levels:

William James pointed out that "my experience is what I agree to attend to," and this is key to designing UX. I must design so that my users are willing to participate in the experience I design. It's a contract between us, and identical typography in different OS is not a clause.

Much of the above was shared as a comment to idsgn's post about User Experience: The Future of Web Design.


November 2009
More in Cognitions
More in UXtraordinary