I posted a slightly different version of this internally to Medium employees on January 29, 2015. See Hatching Inside Medium for more context.

Three misunderstandings about design research

Even though design research is based on some pretty old-school social science methodologies, it’s still a relatively new discipline. As such, there are some misunderstandings about it that come up. Here’s an attempt to clarify three of the biggest.

1. Usability is not enough

Design research is most impactful when it’s done earlier rather than later in the product process. By the time you’re late in the process, you’ve already invested a lot of resources into assuming what you’re building is correct and you’re in no mood to be told otherwise.

Alas, it is common for research to be asked for at this stage. “Hey we’re pretty much done building this thing! Let’s put it in front of users and make sure they like it.”

Good impulse, bad timing.

A young user that “passed” the usability study but is not into actually interested in using the product.

You can certainly check if it’s usable at this late stage—if people can easily get from point A to point B—but that won’t answer whether they’d actually want to.

Observing a person use your product for 30 minutes (which is what a usability test essentially is) doesn’t give you the context and deep understanding of their needs are, and whether it meets them. And even if it hints at it, you won’t be too jazzed to get that news at this stage in the process.

A product can be easy to use but if no one wants to use, it doesn’t matter. Do research early.

2. It’s not about what the users say

So, how do you actually understand people’s needs, and whether your product/feature might actually address them?

Not by asking them.

Not directly anyway. A classic misunderstanding about Design Research is that it’s about asking people what they want and building it. You know that oft-cited (mis)quote from Henry Ford, “If you would have asked the people what they want, they would have said a faster horse?”

This is actually an idea design researchers would agree with: we don’t expect people to have the big-picture context, nor the design experience, to solve their own problems or know the possibility of opportunities out there.

What we can learn is what their current needs and problems are, using methods like diary studies or semi-structured interviews. Once the opportunity is well-articulated, the problem solving and creativity can begin.

An artist rendering of a user describing his perfect product.

In the Ford example, Henry could have have listened to what the people said and realized that there was indeed a need for something faster than a horse. Designing what that was, would be completely up to him.

Understanding the nuances of a problem will inform — and inspire — the design of the solution.

3. Intuition is not the enemy

Some people are very oriented towards designing with their intuition, especially when it’s something radically new. Although it may seem a design researcher is not a big fan of intuition, that’s not necessarily the case.

For one, the reality is not every feature can be researched. Having a more informed intuition via previous design research means you can make a more informed bet when research isn’t around.

A San Francisco designer getting inspired by something she observed in a field study.

For another, the same stuff you do to understand a problem is the same stuff that can inspire you to think of opportunities that don’t exist yet: talking to users, observing them interacting with similar products, generally learning what makes them tick. Immersing yourself in this stuff can be extremely inspiring and make you think of things sitting at your desk just won’t.

Intuition is something you can actually improve: improve it.