present or even extending them, they
are actually making the same mistake
as was made in the 1970s: ignoring the
possibly conflicting and less-pressing
(yet important!) concerns we have.
While co-design practices may offer
substantial benefits when compared
with others, they fail to acknowledge
the core issue standing in the way of a
truly sustainable future: As a design
practice, co-design (and the fruits of its
implementation) satisfies concerns that
we are feeling and experiencing now
but often conflict with others that are
equally important.
Ignoring concerns that are
important to all human beings may
lead to design solutions that can cause
serious problems over time. Solutions
that foster solidarity may create
problems for people’s independence,
and design interventions that aim for
sustainability may conflict with our
need for individual status. Designers
need to be taught to understand just
how easily important concerns can
conflict, and new concerns can arise,
in order to be one step ahead. The
fact that we are now preoccupied
with safety in our neighborhoods,
environmental sustainability, and our
health illustrates that these concerns
were ignored by the design solutions
that enabled them—the very same
solutions that attempted to address
our needs for independence, status,
and convenience. The truth is that in
solely responding to current prevailing
societal concerns, designers are
forgetting that we all have a hard time
expressing or emphasizing concerns
that are not being experienced or
vividly felt. It has become imperative
for designers to take such concerns
into account to prevent the realization
of solutions that foster future
problems, considering the impact
that design practices exert on the
world around us. In other words,
we designers need to assume the
responsibility (indeed: responsibility)
for considering how and why new
concerns arise, in order to prevent
ourselves from creating the problems
of tomorrow.
This wouldn’t be a confession if I
had nothing to confess. Admittedly, I
am reflecting on this design practice
from an academic perspective. I see
very clearly how designers and design
scholars often fail to notice this pattern:
Focusing on solving today’s problems
by addressing vividly felt concerns
will create the next generation of
problems. I see how independence and
individualism were worthwhile pursuits
at one time, and I see how acquiring
them has led to our desire for solidarity
and collectivism. Only designs that do
justice to both individual and collective
concerns will lead to a balanced way
of living. Only a context- and time-
independent perspective can help us
understand how concerns conflict.
This means that when we develop
community-based services, we should
force ourselves to imagine what negative
consequences for independence they
imply. It means that although we see
the drawbacks of current services,
systems, and designs, we should force
ourselves to see the benefits, too. And
it means that when a design appears
to offer a clear benefit to people’s lives,
we should question it carefully. When
we acknowledge that our individual
concerns for comfort, convenience,
efficiency, status, and independence are
as valid as our collective concerns for
peace, health, sustainability, safety, and
solidarity, we will be able to consistently
build a future that does justice to what
makes us human.
Of course, I am also aware of how
immensely difficult this is in practice.
Alongside my work in academia, I also
work in the field. I know how tempting
it is to address overtly expressed
concerns, and I know how satisfying it
is to develop a design that makes people
smile and truly contributes to their
lives now. But it is the responsibility
of designers to move beyond the
frame of reference created by users,
clients, and other stakeholders without
ignoring them. It is the responsibility of
designers to acknowledge felt concerns
as well as known concerns. And it is the
responsibility of designers to take the
time to consider, and give equal measure
to, concerns that nobody else expresses.
Nynke Tromp is an assistant professor
in the Department of Industrial Design, Delft
University of Technology, and a social designer
at Reframing Studio in Amsterdam. In both
positions, she works on the social implications
of design caused by the implicit influence
design inevitably has on people’s behavior.
JULY–AUGUST 2014 INTERACTIONS 21 INTERACTIONS.ACM.ORG
P
H
O
T
O
G
R
A
P
H
B
Y
G
O
R
D
O
N
R
O
S
S