When can mistakes breathe?
When you look around yourself, every single thing has gone through a design phase in its manufacturing. Every single thing you can think of has been designed by people who know them in and out. But if that is the case, why do we still make mistakes? Is it our fault that we are unable to learn the ways of a design?
Good design is a vital part of our lives. This does not just include the visuals and the aesthetics.
“Design is not just what it looks and feels like. Design is how it works” — Steve Jobs
I have a bed in my house that has really sharp edges. Every time I get down from it, I almost get hurt. That’s also the case when I try to navigate my way to the bed when it’s dark (which is quite often). What I usually hear is that I should be careful when using it. After all, it’s my own house and I should be able to navigate my way through it, right? But once in a while, I do end up colliding with it. Since the bed is created for me, I should not be concerned about getting hurt. And yet, when I get hurt, I get blamed for not being more careful. That made me think, does justifying bad design enhance a culture that has no room for mistakes? Does bad design lead to mistakes that are unjustifiable by the user?
Mistakes are usually a convergence of multiple factors and not just an isolated activity. One of these factors is bad design. A culture that provides a room for mistakes will almost always owe bad design to the designers and not the users. I do not like being blamed for getting hurt by a bed that was not designed properly. Bad design makes the user think that they are doing something wrong. That is largely false because it does not intuitively come to me that I should be careful while getting out of bed in the morning (when I’m half asleep :D!).
Coming back to my original question, when can mistakes really breathe? A culture provides room for mistakes when they consider these mistakes human. That happens when one accepts the fact that mistakes are inherently human. But when a product or system is being designed, is this considered? Are systems able to accept the fact that mistakes are human? When we use products that are difficult to use, we instinctively assume that we are at fault and that we are making mistakes that have not been accounted for, and hence, are not human.
“To err is human; to forgive, divine” — Alexander Pope
Scaling this, when the norms of a system start hurting us, we instinctively assume that we are at fault. It’s difficult for a system to accept that there is a design flaw. It’s much easier to blame the user for not being able to cope up with it. When such systems flourish, is it really surprising that mistakes get no room to breathe? It’s difficult to accept something as your own if it’s something you do not even consider you can own. This ends up affecting your self-esteem, because now you end up feeling miserable about making a mistake that is inherently a part of you.
Every system has its constraints. A system does not help if its constraints do not provide room for human mistakes. A more human way of designing systems and products would be one where people can make mistakes and those are accommodated for. A system can have its bottlenecks and constraints and still make the user feel like it’s okay to err. Put simply, such systems and products can tell users through proper signifiers that these mistakes are human. The focus should not be on getting rid of all the foul apples in the basket. It should run on the assumption that every basket, by and large, has foul apples. And these need to be accommodated for.
Systems run on assumptions that the users may never err and that if they do, the designers have no responsibility. These systems are stubborn and are unwilling to admit that they can be flawed. In the last 7 months, we have seen flaws in many systems being amplified to an extent that they wouldn’t have been, had it not been for COVID-19. The problem is that now they owe this flaw to the circumstances. These systems are stubborn enough to not accept the fact that maybe their design has a flaw. Such systems make it difficult for the individuals of a system to flourish and grow healthily. What is worse is that these systems do not forgive you either. Sometimes individuals face dire consequences of having erred in such a system.
If such systems are to change, the process begins only when those stakeholders are held accountable and answerable for why they decided to make the system function in the way that they did. A system designed for its users cannot blame its users if they are not able to cope up with it. Once the designers are held accountable for decisions they make, these decisions can be reflected upon and the design can be more accommodating of human mistakes.
Mistakes are bound to happen. Systems that accommodate for these help in fostering an environment that promotes growth through these mistakes. These systems are healthy and take into account the well-being of its stakeholders, which especially includes those for whom the system is made. These systems also realize that it is okay for them to fail. They are not afraid to admit that and they reflect upon their decisions, which in turn helps them grow. Such a culture provides a healthy room for mistakes.
“You do not rise to the level of your goals, you fall to the level of your system” — James Clear, Atomic Habits
Systems should be designed with an aim to help individuals achieve their goals. This leads to a sense of fulfillment in the community. Such designs proliferate happiness in a culture. Products that are designed well make for happy users. Systems that are designed well lead to a happier culture. Such systems and products help individuals and users grow. They let mistakes breathe.
