Mar 31st, 2009 by Aaron Louie
If we want to create user experiences that have a better chance of surviving the chaos of the market, it may help to adopt evolutionary principles in our design process.
Fundamental Principles of Evolution
Evolution is really very simple: life begets life, with a little variation in each iteration (due to entropy). Some variants perform better than others, giving them an advantage in the face of predators and environmental factors. Over time and zillions of variations, specialization occurs.
Evolution in a nutshell
- Reproduce with variation
- What performs well, survives
- What survives, reproduces
Evolution is not random
It’s important to note that the process of evolution is not random. If it were, we’d have 3-eyed frogs with 6 legs. The reason we don’t is that, if 3-eyed, 6-legged frogs did occur, they didn’t survive any better than the 2-eyed, 4-legged frogs. That’s not random. 2-eyed, 4-legged frogs are simply better at surviving.
What is random about evolution is the mutation and the environment in which this cycle of life and death take place. In nature, evolution is not intentionally guided, as far as we know. Catastrophic events and chance encounters with predators cannot be perfectly controlled in the wild, so evolution tends to take a wandering course.
Evolution with a purpose = breeding
If you wanted to intelligently guide the evolution of an organism, you’d need to look no further than your local AKC kennel or county fair. Humans have been breeding plants and animals to select for certain characteristics for millennia. Corn, rice, wheat, bananas, apples, chickens, cows, horses, goats, sheep, dogs, cats – practically every plant and animal we eat or live with has been bred intentionally. They didn’t evolve naturally – humans pollinated, inseminated, incubated, hybridized, and culled millions of generations of wild organisms to get the highly specialized cadre of useful, nutritious, cuddly, non-toxic, and benign farmyard animals and plants we eat and love.
What’s different between evolution and breeding is that most of the random variables have been removed. Farms are very controlled environments, with relatively few random predator attacks, competitors, or catastrophic weather events. This is because we humans protect our plants and animals with weeding, fencing, shelter, medicine, and a steady supply of food. The randomness of mutation remains but is minimized by selecting breeding pairs that resemble the desired characteristics as much as possible.
These domesticated breeds wouldn’t survive in the wild. Instead, they have helped us survive and become the dominant species on the planet. It was the transition to agriculture – intentional cultivation of plants and animals – that alleviated the need for humans to wipe entire herds of mastodons to feed their burgeoning population. In short, guided evolution allowed humans and their companion organisms to survive. It also allowed and all the beauty and variety of human culture, knowledge, and art to blossom. And it might – in a return to sustainable agriculture – be what allows us to stop catastrophic climate change and survive for another million years.
Art with a purpose = design
Art is self-expression. It’s an act of creation, or, in some cases, an act of destruction or deconstruction. Whatever art is, it rarely has a purpose beyond making visible/audible/legible/tangible the vision of the individual artist. As with the natural world, the world of art evolves based on predation, competition, and the sociopolitical weather. Like evolution, art is not random, but it isn’t necessarily guided either. At least, not guided sufficiently by factors outside the artist.
Design, on the other hand, is guided art. Design is art that is meant to be used by someone other than the artist. There are varying degrees to this – and probably libraries full of these that discuss this subject ad nauseam – but my operational definition of design is art with a purpose. User experience designers are in the business of creating systems that fulfill a purpose – namely, meeting the needs of users.
The problem with the design agency world, where I work, is that design is often confused with art. We strive to create the One True Design, a work of art so perfect that it will be viewed as useful, usable, elegant, and beautiful to all. And it will make money, further the brand, and pacify business stakeholders and partners. We are so enamored with this idea that we structure our projects to conduct research, create a design concept, test that concept, and deliver the One True Design after a few rounds of revisions. Most designs fail the first time. Sometimes miserably. And if you bet the farm on that one design, you only get that one chance.
Here’s an alternative: forget the One True Design. It is an illusion. There are no perfect designs for all time, there are only appropriate designs for specific contexts. Just as orchids and tree frogs are perform well in their niches in the tropical rain forest but not the frozen tundra, certain designs only work well in certain environments. And those environments are subject to change over time. Thus, design must change along with the often catastrophic shifts in markets, customer needs, and business strategy.
At this moment in 2009, we are all facing catastrophic economic change. If we want to create user experiences that have a better chance of surviving the chaos of the market, it may help to adopt the same guided evolutionary approach in our design process.
Evolutionary design process
- Generate design variants
- What performs well, survives
- What survives, generates more variants
This looks very similar to the guided evolutionary process (i.e. breeding), with one key difference: randomization. Unlike with breeding dogs or corn, a guided evolutionary approach to design could be nearly free of random factors. Designers can control the mutation in design variants, creating only those variants that have a chance of surviving. No 3-eyed, 6-legged frogs. But maybe a frog with wings. Or a frog with X-ray vision. Or a frog with the ability to digest pesticides. However, in order to understand whether our flying superfrog has left us better off than with a regular frog, we must measure its performance against some goal. Otherwise, we’re just wasting our time and torturing frogs.