Great sound-bytes, good copy, but is there any evidence at all to support these statements? None that I can think of, unless the author concedes that most design is so incredibly bad that people (both designers and users) have learned to lower their expectations accordingly. Otherwise, it just reads as declarations of victory oblivious to the actual defeat.

No, the design profession has not learned how to satisfy (at least not in a meaningful way). No, there is no reliable and effective process. No, good design is not widespread. These are major problems in the design profession that will not disappear just by wishing them so.

There are well-known (and well-researched and proven) methods to make people feel satisfied, even delighted, that have little or nothing to do with providing them with useful products, valuable services, or informative writing. Since anyone, regardless of qualifications/education/experience/skills, can take on the label “experience design professional” (and probably fool others into believing it is a meaningful label), each of these individuals has a choice to make: Will I learn how to create a truly quality solution, will I instead manipulate others to believing I have produced a quality solution regardless, or will I just delude myself into thinking I am producing a quality solution?

Intentionally or not, by dismissing major problems in the design profession, the article appears more supportive of manipulation and delusion.

I think Parrish has been watching a little too much MTV and not enough Discovery Channel. The technology gap between upper, middle and low-income America is gaping enough, not too mention the enormous technological disparity between developed and underdeveloped countries. It is highly unlikely that all technology will eever be available to all people.

I suggest we stick to the fundamentals until Parrish’s prognastications come to fruition and continue to design user experiences that facilitate end user access to the information they need the most. The key to successful Web site design isn’t sophistication and whimsy, its simplicity. Until we begin finding that our users are calling for more of Parrish’s short end of the stick, the best way to delight them is by meeting their needs.

Not that I think we’re in any danger of actually achieving this, but I would find a situation in which *every* one of my interactions with a product or service set out to delight me a little exhausting, and ultimately cheapening of that very precious concept.

I would settle for a world in which everything worked the way it was supposed to.

For example, my main work is on an engineering development environment for industrial automation. Our recent release includes an SFC editor (a graphical machine-state language) that delights our users because of how well it accomplishes and exceeds it requirements – in meaningful ways that support their work and extend their thinking. Bells and whistles? No. Better than anything else in the industry – or than anyone expected? Yes. Delightful to use? Yes.

Of course, there are still bugs and compromises, but it didn’t take more effort to delight than to “meet expectations.” It just took design skill and user understanding. Delightful experiences can be CHEAPER to implement, because you do things EXACTLY right, and only those things.

http://www.JarrettInteractionDesign.com/2002/09/30

I don’t believe the author is claiming that *every* online interaction must be “delightful” — that each click must result in an “a-ha” experience, or that each page that loads must feature something surprising. Rather, I think he’s simply suggesting that by including even *one* delightful experience among the many (hopefully at least non-frustrating) general experiences of a site can go a long way toward making the visitor happy.

And, ultimately, aren’t we, as information architects and designers, supposed to be striving to make people (users, customers, clients) happy? Simply satisfying people’s needs doesn’t necessarily accomplish that. We may have a long way to go to achieve a universal minimum level of satisfactory online experiences, but once we achieve that, then what? Isn’t providing delight a good thing to reach for next?

If our standards have fallen so precipitously that a commercial enterprise responding to an inquiry appropriately and with a modicum of timeliness causes “delight,” well, then, sure: delight me.

But I would hope that would describe a minimally-acceptable baseline of service, rather than the extent of our ambition. And I would be well chuffed to see the majority of my transactions (Web and otherwise) meet even minimal standards. The trouble is that they don’t, not by a long shot.

(I’ve been reminded of this rather acutely by my discussions over the last couple of days with folks in the ubicomp community, who are aiming at insinuating computation into whatever crannies our lives can afford them. I couldn’t help but feel that, with the Web as wretched an experience as it is, we have no right to be taking things a further step towards pervasiveness and intimacy.)

Like I say, I think we *all* have a long way to go before we can speak of delighting people.