Hi everyone, Kevin here.
Here's a somewhat spicy update to the community. I assembled some thoughts and discussions happening in our space and other adjacent spaces.
Hope you find this interesting!
The Apex Predators of our Design Ecologies
The end of the year always calls for generosity and sharing, right? As sharing Christmas cookies is de rigueur –here, in Switzerland, we love some “Milanais” and “Petits croissants à la vanille”, and I usually make them myself– let me share with you a very sweet, sweet thought:
Nielsen Norman Group is the apex predator of UX.
Harsh? Ok. Not just NN/g. But they are one of the visible symptoms of toxic underlying dynamics in the design landscape –and really, of most unregulated professional fields, especially those that happen to be pulled by the incredible Tech's “gravity well” of (illusory) infinite hype and growth.
Companies make their own standards, for better or for worst (usually the later), or at the very least are complaisant in accepting any external loose marker of credibility as equivalent to “true regulations”. Even when it's a private company, a consulting agency, with heavy conflict of interests. And perhaps it's a feature, not a bug.
Anyway, like many things in Tech, NN/g is a tautological product-as-a-service in disguise –that is to say, a self-referencing machine– using any ounce of credibility to make money on the back of their willing victims, usually aspiring to be (better) designers, like, for instance, through certifications. It's like fake money (that you bought with real money), but more like borrowed credibility. Perhaps fungible tokens? Oh, wait...
Let's be fair, Google and others are doing exactly the same thing, but at least with Google, the Ponzi-scheme is way more obvious. Invent a standard, then impose it to everyone (because you have an almost absolute monopoly), and finally make them pay to get certified to use your standard. This is an apex predator move: you've altered the ecosystem in a way it has become co-dependent to your very existence. No one can imagine a world without you any more, even when what you do or say smells like 💩.
The only thing is, although in nature the ecosystem is actually bounded by physical laws and other ecological regulating mechanisms, this cannot be said of our professional and economic landscapes –and mostly because it is not believed to be.
But I'm sure there are other forms of apex predators in design. What are your thoughts?
A much needed and anticipated State of Design 2025
Doesn't the latest UX Collective's State of UX 2025 sound a bit hypocritical? It does to me.
Fabricio Teixeira, Caio Braga
“The only constant is change” sounds like blind and semi-thoughtless optimism: when “change” is justified at a landscape level (professions, societies, history) but is implied at a personal level. Really, if your job disappears, then you should become this mystical beast, a “meta-designer” (why not? we already have unicorns, after all), or perhaps you should double-down on your craft (get another certificate)? “All-in” either way, right?
I think this moral jump, from environment to individuals, is in many ways problematic.
In our previous update, I made a distinction between optimism and hope which, I think, is highly relevant here:
- To be optimistic is to expect certain results despite all odds.
- To be hopeful is to look for signals of better potential outcomes, given all odds.
Kevin Richard
The “evolution” proposed in the “State of UX” is linear and iterative. But evolution is not necessarily a slow, repetitive, linear process, locked in its own path dependence (see figure 1). It can happen as prototype-like changes which can generate transformative adaptations, through a process of radical repurposing (of existing functions or features) called “exaptation”.
What path dependence theory and evolutionary algorithms tell is that diversity (of options, genes, groups, etc.) needs to be re-introduced to avoid a collapse (within a landscape or a population). In this case, I would argue the signals, the diversity, must come from outside the UX and tech hyperreality to actually make any sort of deep significant changes. Not just a linear iteration, something more radical.
👉 So, I propose we open up a new “State of Design” collection for 2025, with topics like:
- The need for radical (re)imagination
- Fostering decomposition and recombination, a radical design repurposing process
- Rebelling, not Reblanding!
The State of Design 2025 will probably be opened for submissions early next year. So, stay tuned for a dedicated update!
In the meantime, read all the contributions to our “State of Design 2024” here:
Kevin Richard
Our next community event
A parting gift 🎁
Okay, this was a spicy one. But I hope you take this as both a sanity check and a little critical thinking exercise. You don't have to agree. I actually hope you don't fully.
Close your eyes, hold that thought a bit longer, and try to articulate it better. Then open your eyes. Good.
Now, here's a parting gift for you👇
🤣
Thanks for reading!
Kevin from Design & Critical Thinking.
Discussion