However I think that the critique of user-centered design is somewhat misplaced. Inherent in the word design is the visionary and innovative elements that Olsen seem to assign only to what he calls vision-based design. Thus, user-centered design is no “dangerous tunnel vision” but a sound approach where the creative visions of the designer are quality checked against the needs and demands of the user.

User-centered designers are creative people who have enough common sense to check the value of their vision thereby trying to avoid that “nine out of ten product launches fail in the marketplace”.

*Making a vision real for those not blessed with the ability to do so*

*Using your vision of tomorrow to deflect the pedantic mechanics of today*

*Providing a lens to focus the blurry concepts and ideas of others*

These still remain user centred precepts, but nomore around need and utility. Those tireless ‘users’ we’re so fond of should be allowed to dream a little. Perhaps part of our role as designers is to help them achieve this?

Worse, the method itself is a difficult sell in a constrained business environment. Managers hear User-Centred, but would much rather it was Business-Centred. Where in User-Centred Design does it talk of either making money or lowering costs? To pressured business people, it will sound like a very academic methodology. Of course you can argue that happy users are more profitable that probably incur less costs. And those are frequent outcomes. But they are not specific goals of the method.

And the method itself is too often a cloak, for young user experience designs to don the white coat of methodological respectability, rather than argue out issues on direct business terms.

And yes, the word “design” might inherently contain visionary and innovative elements, but the words “user-centred” rather obviously locates that vision and innovation solely within the domain of the user.

As experience designers age, may be they will feel more confident using their own experience to offer a vision and combine that with appropriate user-centred input. Methods are a way of ensuring a common level of competence. They are not a substitute for vision.

“Some use research the way a drunk uses a lamp post: for support rather than illumination.”

. . . a good reminder that user research is best used to INSPIRE design, rather than DRIVE design.

I believe larger part of Web sites originate from an envisioned idea internal to the business rather than some market research to see what consumers would like “invented”. However, without this research and all subsequent user-centered technicalities (IA, usability testing, etc), that ‘vision-driven’ design could be totally misguided.

“Focusing exclusively on users” is exactly the OPPOSITE of the “build and fix” approach. It is MEANT to make better designs and avoid fixes (I really did not get it why did this article said otherwise).

Both approaches – user-centered and vision-driven – are complementary and essential to the final success of project; the first guarantees innovation and the later performance.

You argue for products that are relevant and desirable, as if this is something new and different, rather than a primary focus of user-centered design.

“does it really matter if the marketing people, the techies, or the office receptionist came up with the idea in question?”

No, it doesn’t matter. What matters is what the idea is built upon and if it will be given the scrutiny it deserves.

Another danger in user-centred design that management can lose its delusions that they are trying to please everyone and then try to do it! major mistake. Georges comments about the mini-van reminded me of Alan Cooper talking about how the Dodge RAM became the best selling pickup because 80% of people hated and the other 20% loved it. That’s user-centred design too!

Too often companies try to market based on usability and usefulness. Almost always a mistake. People shop by features. Usability and usefulness are much bigger players in retention. If I remember correctly, marketing is one of the three legs of Donald Normans product success stool.

I’ve always wished for a better term than (the patronizing) ‘user’ – they’re people too!