Simulating user experience
Since the 1950’s, the Human Sciences (in the broad sense that includes design) have embraced a user- or human-centered approach to research. This usually takes the form of ubiquitous user experience surveys, observation, and other methods of getting ecologically valid feedback. Many “experts” in these fields, however, still insist that users doesn’t know what they want, and therefore claim that extensive user testing is the path toward banality at best, and miserable failure at worst (e.g. the Ford Edsel). So how to reconcile the two views and maintain the practical advantages of each? A recent article at Reuters (via the Two Minds blog) describes how engineers and designers at Nissan have formulated a solution: the designers handicap themselves using a constrictive body suit in a Harrison Bergeron-esque attempt to experience the lowest common denominator of user abilities, namely the physical impairments associated with old age.
Although it is an interesting approach, and the designers seem to be “discovering” valuable insights into the experience of driving for the elderly, I can’t help but think this simulation is wildly skewed from the experience it attempts to mimic. My concern is similar to the criticism leveled at those who suggest closing your eyes in order to simulate the experience of being blind. Even a cursory study of perception reveals why this does not work. Absolute blindness is (typically) not the perception of darkness, but rather the absence of visual sensation at all - an experience that cannot be simulated by those with functioning visual systems. Similarly, I suspect that the experience of operating a vehicle as an elderly person is very different from a young person wearing a constricting body suit. Being old is probably not like working out on a Bowflex, and the movement resistance provided by Nissan’s suit seems to follow exactly that kind of dynamic. Furthermore, asking someone to wear a suit that simulates another individual’s experience will powerfully prime a stereotypical, caricatured behavior of that target demographic. You can try it yourself - speak very very slowly, with long drawn out vowels. Did you drop your voice so that it sounded a bit more like a slow-motion playback from an audio recording? That’s the result of cognitively pairing “slow speech” with “lowered voice” - two independent variables. Ask others to do the same thing - in a majority of cases, I suspect that they will unwittingly lower their voice due to the unconscious link between slowed speech and lowered voice. These Nissan designers are likely doing the same thing. As soon as the head of the project states, “this suit will simulate the experience of being elderly”, watch them adopt elderly-typical behaviors even before putting the suit on.
Despite this flaw, I suspect that this method of simulating the difficulties faced by real-world users will become more widespread in the industry and ultimately lead to improved functional designs. But the improvement will be across demographic categories, not just for the elderly. Making a task artificially difficult in almost any way should effectively highlight its underlying weaknesses or critical components. The Nissan suit therefore serves as a filter on driving tasks, focusing design attention on the most difficult procedures, but not providing an approximation of the physical experience of elderly drivers as intended.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.