Designers often ask themselves: “How did this ever happen?” Was it just idiots at work, or what was going on?

In a development process, conflicting goals often decide how product and service systems end up being designed. Those conflicts are everywhere. They come from stakeholders, but also from the designers’ attitude towards the users. Most of the time, certain design patterns can be explained by how designers relate to their target group and how they understand it.

This isn’t meant as a judgment, even though participatory development is often treated as morally superior. People also design without participatory formats on purpose, and both clients and users read the result as a success.

The following chapters try to draw a connection between the design philosophies. The text is a call to build an understanding between designers and users, and to define words that describe this relationship. At the end there’s a table with all the philosophies covered here. It doesn’t claim to be complete.

Actively anti-user

Design philosophies that actively work against users are more common than you’d think. Polarizing examples like Japanese anti-design, which sees itself more as art, belong here. So does exclusive design, which is aimed against specific users.

This second direction, designing to actively shut people out, can create a sense of value, for example. I don’t mean exclusion through price or scarcity. I mean designing actively against users: people whose bodies don’t fit a fashion collection, or homeless people who are supposed to be kept from sleeping on park benches. Both shut certain groups out in order to set themselves apart from them, to set their own standard for fashion or for the cityscape, and to communicate the values worth aspiring to. Design that works this way can be seen as desirable and valuable precisely because it actively excludes.

Manipulative design shows that actively anti-user design isn’t necessarily bad for the target group. It uses its indicating function to communicate a certain way of using something. Think of doors you can only push. But manipulative design can also communicate things that aren’t true and mislead users on purpose, shrinkflation for example.

Passively anti-user

A passive-aggressive attitude towards other people isn’t always easy to spot right away. Passively anti-user design is the same. Sometimes it hides behind its goals.

In these philosophies, other goals are put above the users. That usually means nobody acts against the users, but nobody thinks about them either. Whether the goals are noble, as in ecological design with its bamboo toothbrushes that tear up the corners of your mouth, or self-imposed, as in auteur design, the priorities say nothing about whether the design succeeds.

Ideological design and agnostic design belong here too. “Form follows function” came out of wanting to make things as easy as possible for users. But it doesn’t involve them in the development process, so it can only make assumptions about what they really want. I’m aware that this philosophy still carries design value among designers today. The following paragraphs will hopefully make clear why it still doesn’t stand up for users, but passively stands against them: the focus isn’t on the user, it’s on the design.

Passively pro-user

As soon as designers say the words “target group”, you have to ask whether they mean the users, the buyers or the actual target group. I look at that distinction more closely in another article, but the Toniebox example still fits here: the users are the kids, the buyers are the kids’ relatives, and the target group is the parents. The distinction matters because this is where it starts: who gets addressed, and who gets considered during development.

The lowest level of involvement is holistic design. It cares about every aspect the design object touches, but it doesn’t define how deep to look and doesn’t allow a real focus. The attention gets spread wide.

The next level would be generalizing design. It doesn’t engage with the users, but makes up blanket requirements for them. That’s fast and doesn’t take much work. If you’ve ever filled out a persona without doing any interviews, you’re guilty of it.

You can recognize the next two philosophies by their feedback culture. Here the users weren’t considered in the design, or were considered wrongly, so once the product is made there’s a mismatch between product and users. With tolerating and accepting design, feedback is at least possible. With accepting design it also gets used, to improve the product afterwards or to feed into a new development.

Actively pro-user

From here on, the design is for the users, not just past them.

Inclusive design makes something accessible to new groups of users: “We design from the fifth to the ninety-fifth percentile of society, and beyond.” That sounds like it’s only about accounting for people with disabilities, but it can be more.

Democratic or humanistic design goes a step further and wants to make it accessible to all groups of users: “We copied this design classic, made it cheaper and made it accessible to more people.” Ikea. That should be a maxim, but it doesn’t work in a world where quality then gets cut or where luxury brands exist.

Sympathetic design keeps the users in mind during development: “This is how I picture the persona based on our quantitative data.” I already know what they want.

Empathic design asks the users during development: “These are the problems we were able to identify in our in-depth qualitative interviews.” That’s the bare minimum. But “we understand you” can quickly come across as paternalistic.

Involving users

Participatory design brings the users into development. Co-creation: “This is how we’d like it.” Together we’ll get there.

Involved design goes even further: the designers become users themselves. “I’ve been fishing for three weeks now.” But it gets better.

And finally, self-referential design: the designers have always been users and no longer have any distance from the subject. “I was born with a fishing rod, of course I know everything about it.” I’m the expert, I don’t need anyone else. It’s similar to auteur design, except that here it’s not about the design language, it’s about the subject.

Top to bottom: how close to the users

	Philosophy	Explanation	Statement	Example	My opinion
1	Anti-design	Actively designing against the users	“It’s not meant to be used, and if it is, only with great discomfort or pain.”	Coffee cup with the handle on the inside	Art
2	Exclusive design	Actively designing against specific users	“I want it to be impossible to use it like that.”	Park benches you can’t lie down on	Go outside, touch grass
3	Manipulative design	Designing to influence the users	“You can only push this door, not pull it.”	Doors that clearly show how to use them; nudging; dark patterns	Sometimes good, sometimes pretty evil
4	Ideological design	Designing according to a particular ideology	“XXX would have wanted it this way.” “This style does it like this.”		Questioning it usually helps
	Ecological design	The environmental impact matters more than the users	“It always tears up the corners of my mouth, but at least it’s good for the environment.”	Bamboo toothbrushes
5	Holistic design	Not just the individual users are considered, but also the impact on ecology, society and the economy	“If we put this product on the market, it will have these effects.”		The opposite of humanistic design
6	Auteur design	The designer’s taste is the only right one	“I like this style and that’s the only way I’ll design from now on, no matter what anyone else thinks.”	Zaha Hadid, Jony Ive, Dieter Rams, Virgil Abloh	My taste, nothing else. Can work, but only with really good designers. You need the ego for it first. It’s never done by one person anyway though, more of a creative director thing.
7	Agnostic design	The users aren’t considered	“It has to work. That’s it.”		Capital goods don’t need design, right?
8	Generalizing design	Designing based on prejudice	“This is how I picture the persona, going on gut feeling.”		Can be fast, but is usually off pretty fast too
9	Tolerating design	The users are tolerated, but ignored	“Here’s that Karen again, not liking something.”		Customers are free to complain
10	Accepting design	The users are heard and understood, but only afterwards	“Let’s see what we can get out of the feedback.”		Feedback? No time, no money. Can happen later in the process too. Let’s just do an MVP.
11	Inclusive design	Designing to make it accessible to new groups of users	“We design from the fifth to the ninety-fifth percentile of society, and more.”		Sounds like accounting for people with disabilities, but it can be more
12	Democratic / humanistic design	Designing to make it accessible to all groups of users	“We copied this design classic, made it cheaper and made it accessible to more people.”	Ikea	Should be a maxim, but doesn’t work in a world where quality then gets cut or where luxury brands exist
13	Sympathetic design	The users are kept in mind during development	“This is how I picture the persona based on our quantitative data.”		I know what they want
14	Empathic design	The users are asked during development	“These are the problems we were able to identify in our in-depth qualitative interviews.”		The bare minimum. But “we understand you” can quickly come across as paternalistic
15	Participatory design	The users are brought into development	“This is how we’d like it.”	Co-creation with users	Together we’ll get there
16	Involved design	The designers become users themselves	“I’ve been fishing for three weeks now.”		But it gets better
17	Self-referential design	The designers have always been users and have no distance from the subject	“I was born with a fishing rod, of course I know everything about it.”		I’m the expert and don’t need anyone else. Similar to auteur design, except that here it’s not about the design language, it’s about the subject.