Key Moments: 00:00 Introduction: Understanding Human-Centered Design 01:11 Key Features of User-Centered Design 02:05 Contexts of Use 04:22 Focus on Real Users and Real Contexts 04:38 User-Centered Design Diagram 05:50 Avoiding Waste Through Comprehensive Design Processes 07:14 Adapting Solutions to Different Contexts 09:25 Steps of User-Centered Design Process
I am impressed with the introduction and the understanding of the role and value of well-executed principles of Human-Centered Design, with the term "User". Though the focus seems to direct the "User" skills sharing in strengthening the Human-Centered Design.
I think it is a practicality issue. While psychologically and from a broad point of view Human and User are "the same" and really should be thought of that way, the actual words "human" and "user" have their different definitions, meanings and uses. Example: when thinking about the problem of public transportation, one should really think about passengers as humans to make sure transportation meets the regular human needs. But when talking about the topic, constantly using "humans" could get confusing as to whether it includes the driver of the public transport or the people taking care of the infrastructure or whoever else, or just the passengers. To bring the example closer home, "users" and "stakeholders" are both human. But talking about humans only, you could get into situations where it is not clear whether you mean actual users, actual stakeholders, or both, or somebody else.
Just don't pay attention. This is a vain pedantic debate. Both terms are indeed interchangeable. The main idea is to respect the people we are designing for and that often times, you may hear people talking about "the user" in a negative or non-empathetic way.
This video doesn't really get around to the core question of "how is human-centered design different than user-centered." So the rest of the video after the start is really about UCD, though to be fair, there's a lot of overlap, and if you're designing a product for a company that cares primarily about its users, they might as well be the same. The "calling users 'users' dehumanizes them" isn't the only (or even main reason) that HCD is different than UCD. The real difference is that HCD focuses on humans beyond direct users. It's not just about users, but stakeholders: different types of people who could potentially have any interest or stake in the thing being designed. HCD makes more sense when you think about designing for things that play a social role. For example, imagine you want to redesign a city park. Obviously, you want to consider it's current users. But there are tons of people who might have an interest (stakeholders), even if they're not currently users or never become users. Maybe nearby dog owners don't really use the park now, but would would, if it had a off-leash area. Maybe a business owner nearby would never use the park but wants the park to be designed in a way to encouraging users to walk to it so they pass by her shop. Maybe parents of small children would actually hate it if the new park had an off-leash area because they are concerned that encouraging more dogs would put their children at risk. Dealing with these kinds of conflicting desires and wants is also a bigger part of HCD vs UCD, as you are more likely to get conflict when you engage different types of stakeholder groups.
03:40 well you have clearly never paid for a coffee in Germany 😅 it works exactly like in a supermarket, one by one all in line waiting for their turn to pay 😁
Hi Jarryd, thanks for the comment! We see your point and totally understand. We've come to learn that not all solutions fit all the teams. There are still folks who prefer (and want!) to see and feel their process in paper and ink - even if it means they'll have to do it over again on their computers. Time will tell the future of paper prototypes. 🙂📄🖊
It has been referring to humans all the time. But HCD is about incorporating a mindset or to make a realisation that systems are here to make the lives of humans easier = the system in fact revolves around real humans. While the term "user" carries a component connotation = users are just one of many parts of the system.
@@Puleczech Thanks for bringing back here. Just watched it again. It appears that in the video, William Hudson advises not to call users by the word user, but to give them a name (as we do in personas) as just talking about say 'the user' may dehumanize people. So instead of using the phrase «the user is doing x» be are better off using the persona name as in «Rebecca is doing x». Hence making it clear that we are indeed talking about a real human (that hopefully we have characterized with UXR) and not an anonymous "stupid user". It is really funny though that W.H. then goes on for the rest of the video by never ever mentioning the word human again and consistently talking about users. Why make that Human vs User point in the beginning then? Both terms are totally interchangeable. What matters is to not dehumanize people using our designs. All this to say that I find this debate some have between users and humans totally pedantic. This distracts us from the pertinence and the objective of an otherwise great video.
![ลองสุ่มไอโฟน 990 โกงมั้ย? [ โกงมั้ยครับ ep.101 ] | DOM](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bfsWe0j492k/mqdefault.jpg)
Key Moments:
00:00 Introduction: Understanding Human-Centered Design
01:11 Key Features of User-Centered Design
02:05 Contexts of Use
04:22 Focus on Real Users and Real Contexts
04:38 User-Centered Design Diagram
05:50 Avoiding Waste Through Comprehensive Design Processes
07:14 Adapting Solutions to Different Contexts
09:25 Steps of User-Centered Design Process
I am impressed with the introduction and the understanding of the role and value of well-executed principles of Human-Centered Design, with the term "User". Though the focus seems to direct the "User" skills sharing in strengthening the Human-Centered Design.
"You can actually CANNOT do evaluations on things you haven't built". 😆🤣 Priceless!
OMG What a good point about the evaluation process 👍
This was an amazing summary!
Thank you! We're glad you enjoyed the summary, your feedback means a lot for us! ☺
Empathy is so important
Empathy 🤝 Design for the win!
Thanks a lot. It is a good context about HCD
Learn more about human-centered design in our online courses:
www.interaction-design.org/courses?
You're a wonderful teacher.
Confused as to why the start of this theory is "human" centered and the rest of the video continues with the term "User"?
the user is almost always human
I think it is a practicality issue. While psychologically and from a broad point of view Human and User are "the same" and really should be thought of that way, the actual words "human" and "user" have their different definitions, meanings and uses.
Example: when thinking about the problem of public transportation, one should really think about passengers as humans to make sure transportation meets the regular human needs. But when talking about the topic, constantly using "humans" could get confusing as to whether it includes the driver of the public transport or the people taking care of the infrastructure or whoever else, or just the passengers.
To bring the example closer home, "users" and "stakeholders" are both human. But talking about humans only, you could get into situations where it is not clear whether you mean actual users, actual stakeholders, or both, or somebody else.
Just don't pay attention. This is a vain pedantic debate. Both terms are indeed interchangeable. The main idea is to respect the people we are designing for and that often times, you may hear people talking about "the user" in a negative or non-empathetic way.
This video doesn't really get around to the core question of "how is human-centered design different than user-centered." So the rest of the video after the start is really about UCD, though to be fair, there's a lot of overlap, and if you're designing a product for a company that cares primarily about its users, they might as well be the same.
The "calling users 'users' dehumanizes them" isn't the only (or even main reason) that HCD is different than UCD. The real difference is that HCD focuses on humans beyond direct users. It's not just about users, but stakeholders: different types of people who could potentially have any interest or stake in the thing being designed. HCD makes more sense when you think about designing for things that play a social role.
For example, imagine you want to redesign a city park. Obviously, you want to consider it's current users. But there are tons of people who might have an interest (stakeholders), even if they're not currently users or never become users. Maybe nearby dog owners don't really use the park now, but would would, if it had a off-leash area. Maybe a business owner nearby would never use the park but wants the park to be designed in a way to encouraging users to walk to it so they pass by her shop. Maybe parents of small children would actually hate it if the new park had an off-leash area because they are concerned that encouraging more dogs would put their children at risk. Dealing with these kinds of conflicting desires and wants is also a bigger part of HCD vs UCD, as you are more likely to get conflict when you engage different types of stakeholder groups.
Thanks 🙏
How can and which department give job after done this course
💥
03:40 well you have clearly never paid for a coffee in Germany 😅 it works exactly like in a supermarket, one by one all in line waiting for their turn to pay 😁
User is key ...
This guy is good.
Don’t build paper prototypes. They’re inefficient. Use Figma and Webflow.
Hi Jarryd, thanks for the comment! We see your point and totally understand. We've come to learn that not all solutions fit all the teams.
There are still folks who prefer (and want!) to see and feel their process in paper and ink - even if it means they'll have to do it over again on their computers. Time will tell the future of paper prototypes. 🙂📄🖊
@@InteractionDesignOrg yes I am one of those who prefer and want paper prototypes/wireframes
Since when does the word user do not refer to humans? Any HX designer here could explain that to me?
Lo explica en los primeros minutos
It has been referring to humans all the time. But HCD is about incorporating a mindset or to make a realisation that systems are here to make the lives of humans easier = the system in fact revolves around real humans. While the term "user" carries a component connotation = users are just one of many parts of the system.
@@Puleczech Thanks for bringing back here. Just watched it again. It appears that in the video, William Hudson advises not to call users by the word user, but to give them a name (as we do in personas) as just talking about say 'the user' may dehumanize people. So instead of using the phrase «the user is doing x» be are better off using the persona name as in «Rebecca is doing x». Hence making it clear that we are indeed talking about a real human (that hopefully we have characterized with UXR) and not an anonymous "stupid user". It is really funny though that W.H. then goes on for the rest of the video by never ever mentioning the word human again and consistently talking about users. Why make that Human vs User point in the beginning then? Both terms are totally interchangeable. What matters is to not dehumanize people using our designs.
All this to say that I find this debate some have between users and humans totally pedantic. This distracts us from the pertinence and the objective of an otherwise great video.
When you say the word "human", when you mean the word "user", you dehumanize the word "human".