Eudaimonistic-centered design
The virtues of UX
Paradoxical UX
Before unpacking that $10 word in the title, I want to begin with a question: can a good user experience be bad for the user? The answer may seem obvious, but let’s consider it carefully. Depending on the metric, if we have fantastic conversion rates, few checkout drop-offs, or high NPS scores, we might believe that the product’s UX is doing well.
However, what if the conversion rates were fantastic because users had only one option available? What if the reason users didn’t abandon the checkout was that the product sold was inherently addictive? What if NPS scores were high because the product violated the user’s privacy to generate an excellent, personalized experience? The UX might be good for the product, but it could be bad for the user.
Of course, a natural pushback is that I’m listing quantitative measures for the most part. I can grant that. But, as a user of an e-cigarette, I enjoy the experience of nicotine. I enjoy the simple and usable design of my device. And, I enjoy the variety of available flavors. The UX is good for the product, but it’s bad for me.
Given this, it seems the answer to my initial question is a definite “yes.” This answer creates a deeper need for something greater than excellent UX design, even greater than user-centered design. The eudaimonia of the user should be considered.
Enter the Lyceum
About 2,400 years ago, the great philosopher Aristotle opened the Lyceum, a “school in a public exercise area dedicated to the god Apollo Lykeios.”¹ There, his students would study subjects ranging from philosophy and mathematics to politics and the arts.
In his life and study, Aristotle argued that eudaimonia (i.e., human flourishing, happiness, or well-being) is the highest end that all people pursue. Further, eudaimonia requires virtuous activity, where “living well consists in doing something, not just being in a certain state or condition.”² The different dispositions a person has when doing virtuous activity are where we can find the virtues themselves.
When people face life-threatening challenges, we might say that they are acting courageously. Or, when people refrain from having one more drink, we might say that they are exhibiting temperance. Virtues like courage, temperance, and others are conducive to eudaimonia. They are the dispositions or character traits a person has, or shows, when acting. Now, we might ask: what does this have to do with design?
Eudaimonistic-Centered Design
Much like user-centered design (UCD), where the user is continuously considered first in building or concepting out a product or service, I would argue that eudaimonistic-centered design (ECD) does the same but goes a step further. ECD asks whether the product in itself is good for the user’s overall well-being.
Of course, I’m using the term “product” vaguely, where it could mean a digital experience, a physical device, a service, or even an environment. “Well-being” is loosely defined too and necessarily so. For example, if we were hired to design a thrill park, we ought to prioritize the user’s safety on every roller coaster. However, with a calorie-counter app, we might focus on users’ health and nutrition in recommending safe diets and meals. How a product contributes to a user’s eudaimonia is going to fluctuate, and what’s good for one user may be bad for another. Nonetheless, we can pair our expertise in designing delightful and enjoyable experiences with having the user’s well-being in mind.
Some may object saying that UCD does ask about the user’s well-being too. But, returning to my e-cig example, I could employ a UCD methodology for an even better device, all while putting the user first in the process. ECD takes on an additional, moral component that UCD appears to be neutral about.
A caveat: if a designer is working for a company where it’s uncertain whether their product helps or harms a user, I’m certainly not saying we revolt in the workplace or undermine the product. Rather, what we can do is our best to inform, advocate, and protect users about what they are getting into with each and every experience we design. And, my hope is that the virtues of UX will do just that.
The Virtues of UX
As Aristotle listed virtues conducive to the good life, I would like to propose a set of virtues conducive to ECD: transparency, reciprocity, autonomy, and privacy. Rather than get involved in the myriad of debates surrounding the the exact requirements for a virtue, the following discussion of virtues attempts to describe the traits of what ethical designers do.
Transparency
noun
Designing an experience where a user can easily understand the purpose of, and consequences from using, a product.
From Nielsen’s system-status heuristic³ to surgeon general warning labels, we must do our best to inform the user of how and why this product is used and help them understand what ‘side effects’ may come from using it.
As it is difficult to guess how a user will interact with a product, it can be doubly difficult to determine how some products might affect the user’s well-being. Still, we can do our due diligence to keep the user informed as we learn more about the user as well as our own product.
Terms & conditions (T&C) pages, for example, do adhere to transparency, but we can definitely improve the UX of these pages or documents. Avoiding ivory-tower language, small text, and lengthy forms, we should incorporate our expertise for both the visual design and the content. Commonly, T&C pages might be thought of as merely a ‘CYA,’ but we owe it to the user to help them understand what they’re signing up for.
Reciprocity
noun
Creating a situation in which a user and a product engage in a mutually beneficial and respectful relationship.
Like any beginning relationship, there is a phase in which two people are getting to know each other. The same should be true for user-product relationships. Users ought to be able to research and explore a product without overcommitting (e.g., unnecessary account creation, immediate payments, constant emails, etc.). If a user enjoys what we’re selling, then they can decide whether they want to commit further by signing up or paying for premium features. Or, if they want to end the relationship permanently, we should easily allow them to do so.
Moreover, communication is vital. There should be readily available assistance for the user if they need help interacting with the product, as Nielsen’s 10th heuristic recommends.⁴ Thus, live-chat buttons, help forums, and customer service information ought to be easy to find and access.
For example, one of my favorite task-management applications allows for levels of commitment. I’m able to use the app without having to pay anything upfront, and I get the majority of its features to start. But, if I’d like additional features, I’m offered an option to upgrade to their premium account at a reasonable cost. The app’s company get to decide what features are free or premium, and I get to decide whether I’d like to upgrade. If I hated their app, I’m able to completely delete my account as well. Reciprocity.
Autonomy
noun
Providing the ability for a user to decide and act without being constrained by the product.
Whether free will or determinism is true is an age-old, philosophical debate. In some cases, it’s also a debate in design. Do we allow the user to do otherwise? Or, is the user forced into a decision with our product? If we’re selling the only product of its kind on the market, reciprocity plays an important role. If we’re not, transparency will; we can inform the user of other related products, all while proposing why ours is the best available.
Within a smaller scope, users should be able to adjust the product to their preference, customize it, or tailor it to their needs. As we’re well aware from any user research or testing, users often use our designs in ways we never would have imagined. Initially, we should aim to meet the user’s mental model on first use but also accommodate more nuanced user behaviors and levels of expertise.
The following point overlaps with reciprocity, but it makes sense here as well. Users should always be given a choice to opt-out whether that be from notifications, newsletters, or the product itself. And, along with being transparent, it shouldn’t be a trek to find out how to unsubscribe from newsletters or delete an account. Giving users this choice and being upfront about their options respects the user-product relationship too.
Privacy
noun
Preserving a user’s state of being uninvaded and uninterrupted by the attention of a product.
While there are many rabbit holes to fall down regarding data privacy, those discussions are outside the scope of this article. Yet, we should be considerate of the user’s privacy options for our designed products. Users need to be placed in the driver’s seat of what they want to provide and what they want to keep to themselves. For instance, we should be mindful of what content may present itself on an email or push notification. If the information is potentially sensitive, users should have the option to hide that content.
As for logging into a mobile application, many smartphones offer an ability to use the built-in fingerprint scanner. Having multiple methods for a secure login, again, will improve that user-product relationship. For desktop and non-mobile experiences, two-factor authentication might be a reasonable alternative.
In light of autonomy, we shouldn’t force the user to surrender their credit card information. There are many forms of digital payment that products can utilize without storing the card’s data on the product itself. To ensure a comfortable and private experience, we should incorporate these options in our paid products.
Parting Thoughts
While the UX virtues overlap one another in significant ways, they also have their important differences. And, the ‘TRAP’ virtues may not be an exhaustive list either. But, my hope is that they’re reasonable and kickstart a discussion about more robust ethics of design. More virtues may certainly exist, and I hope we discover and implement them in our work. I’d argue, though, that new virtues should be conducive to an ECD framework.
Ultimately, my goal with proposing ECD and the virtues is to get us thinking about more than just the base UX of a product; my goal here is for us to be more conscientious of the user’s well-being in what we design and how we design it. If we have the opportunity to implement the UX virtues in an existing product or have an ECD mindset when designing a new one, we’ll create better products, happier and more confident users, and have clearer consciences in our already meaningful work.
References
[1] Shields, Christopher. “Aristotle.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2020 Edition). Edward N. Zalta (ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/aristotle/.
[2] Kraut, Richard. “Aristotle’s Ethics.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2018 Edition). Edward N. Zalta (ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/aristotle-ethics/.
[3] Nielsen, Jakob.“10 Usability Heuristics for User Interface Design.” Nielsen Norman Group, last modified November 15, 2020. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/ten-usability-heuristics/.
[4] Nielsen, Jakob.“10 Usability Heuristics for User Interface Design.” Nielsen Norman Group, last modified November 15, 2020. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/ten-usability-heuristics/.
