The issue isn’t really politics. The issue is making implicit the values each of us holds, which affect our work. The issue is also being conscious about the way our designs influence behavior of our users, in ways that inherently promote certain values and inhibit others.

There is a strong cultural myth in the US that, just as one supposedly should separate commerce from morality, because “values consideration just get in the way of maximizing ‘pure’ market efficiency”, that one should similarly separate design from responsibility, because that “just gets in the way of serving the client.”

The truth is that there is no such thing as “value-neutral” design, because all designs contain within them affordances and inhibitors that influence users’ behavior.

The real problem is unconscious design – design that unintentionally embeds values that may or may not be consistent with intent. (This is a particular problem in my industry, but plagues all social design disciplines). Designing without acknowledging the values implications of one’s design decisions is just bad design, it isn’t value-neutral design.

The best kind of design acknowledges, embraces, and deliberately embodies personal values. That kind of design is facilitated when we are open and deliberate about our own values.

Another way of putting it: if it doesn’t make a difference, what’s the point?

The only person I remember hearing someone focus on this problem in particular was Christina Wodtke, who used to give a short talk on working with others…part management, part diffusion of politics. Her basic message was “head off politics ahead of time by making solid relationships with people, caring about them and appreciating what they do”.

Let’s bring it back to the subject here. In the 10 years I’ve been doing this, virtually from day one, all I have heard is how political our clients are, how political the places we work in are, how the utterance of a lone, lurking stakeholder manages to wreck weeks of hard work: how, in essence, corporate politics can hurt otherwise solid UX/IA/IxD work. And yet, I have seen precious little about how we overcome this, which is a major barrier, except for more horror stories. I’d like to hear more about how we deploy strategies to include these stakeholders earlier in so we don’t get surprised, but we’re often insulated from them.

The Bush administration’s policy in the Middle East has nothing to do with design. The reactions to your posts are more about the problem of using examples to try and make a point.

The article you linked to, “Is Design Political?”, is another matter.

“Design is political because it has consequences, and sometimes serious ones. The power of designers is that we can design things to have different consequences.”

The writer’s attempt to conflate human intent and process is wrong-headed. Which is she talking about, design or designers? Design is not a moral agent, only people are. Same with technology, business, art, etc. Utility knives were used by the 9/11 hijackers. Does that make utility knives evil?

Politics is about the exercise of power among people. People can use design or anything else to further their aims, but the ethics always remain in the intent and behavior of humans.

This fundamental mistake leads to a whole host of erroneous conclusions:

“Participatory design work, if done well, can be fundamentally democratic, giving ordinary people a voice and an opportunity to influence outcomes.”

“Participatory” design is somehow morally superior to design by an individual? Where does that lead us? Why not paticipatory engineering as well? We’ll get random groups of diverse citizens to build large structures, thus eliminating the the power bias of professional architects, engineers and contractors who are beholden to powerful developers and financial institutions. Would that be morally superior? Would you want your family to live in such a building?

The whole article reeks of historical materialism. It’s no coincidence that whenever a totalitarian regime gains power the first thing they do is eliminate the professional and academic classes in the name of “democratization”. See Russia in the 1920s, China in the 60s, Cambodia in the 70s, etc.

Unless of course you are running for office

Unless you tend to think that all people who would be intrested in your social web design posts might lean towards your politics, you have to accept that there is a subset of readers that might have a different set of filters, experiences, knowlege that might lead them to other political conclusions.

From that subset of readers, some (like myself) are able to read your posts and focus on the overall *design* message you’re trying to illustrate, and others might not be able to.

If you don’t want that audience, that’s fine- it’s your blog, but it all depends on the message *you* want to send.

ps- I will say that you’ve built a archive of posts, and in your work with UIE and presentations, and other writings, you’ve earned my respect, interest, and daily review of your site for interesting commentary on *web design*. I have no idea what your experience, history, background, etc in terms of politics is- so I put no basis into your political views until such time as I can formulate a solid understanding as to whether I can trust and respect your views on politics. -although truth be told, I don’t really care all that much (in your politics) and wouldn’t stick around as reader long enough to build that trust…

Am I trying to score cheap points by referring to Bush in this way?

Was I trying to score cheap points when, back in 2002, I put up an anti-war sign over the homepage of this site urging people to stop the invasion?

What if I just don’t believe in War as a solution to any problem? And, what if I can’t separate the way that I feel from the words that I write?

By nailing your colours to the mast, as you have every right to do, you gain and lose kudos according to issues beyond the scope of your main argument. If you’ve judged you audience right its an effective way of scoring cheap points – sure its not logical but somewhere in the back of my head there’s a voice saying ‘this guy is anti-Bush – he must have his head screwed on the right way’ and curiously your opinions on everything from websites to cheese carry a tiny bit more weight. The opposite clearly applies to others – who will most likely be more vocal about it.

Let’s examine:

Bush illustrated with exquisite words: “Iraq has WMDs.”

Truth illustrated with actual facts: We’ve been there longer than WWII and no signs of nukes, chemicals, or bioweapons yet.

There’s no politics there, just fact.

Speech said one thing (and was eloquently designed — don’t forget Mushroom Clouds over American Citiesâ„¢!”) and reality said another.

Besides, if Josh did –theoretically, in the future — want to chat politics… it is his blog. Unlike America (sometimes), this ain’t a democracy.

One is about being factual. The other is about sending a message that an audience wants to hear. I think Bush did both wrong. He essentially lied about the cause and effect of the current campaign, and then told people to expect more of it. First, that is not truthful (the Middle East is in more turmoil now than it was before the War), and the audience, for the most part, didn’t want to hear about more troops having to go over). And, further, Bush isn’t necessarily the cause of this…he doesn’t have much choice now. In addition, I think Kerry sent the wrong message in his presidential campaign. So no hard feelings about the actual person in question…lots of politicians send lots of wrong messages…the SOTU address was fresh in my mind.

However, talking about messages…the difference between Jobs and Bush is huge…for one thing Bush represents his audience and Jobs does not. So the issue of responsibility weighs (or should weigh) Bush down…Jobs does not represent anybody but his own company.

Second, Jobs’ audience is the Mac faithful, so to speak, so he’s preaching to the choir. Bush’s audience is most of the world, since U.S. policy affects the whole world (especially the Middle East right now). So I don’t see that as a valid comparison in any way. In the same way Bill Gates has a lot less responsibility than Bush, so I’m much less concerned with what he says than the President.

But the original point was about sending the right message. The Bush speechwriters are like visual designers…they craft a speech (or visuals) to deliver a message…they communicate. They can succeed in delivering a clear message, whether or not the message is the right one, or is well-received.

Back to the question of this post…of course I agree with Adam Clayton…he’s the man.

In any event, your above statement “I used our beloved President Bush as a public speaker who delivers solid speeches, but often says things that just don’t agree with the facts on the ground” is not an accurate summation of what you wrote in your earlier post.

Here is the statement in question:

Every time George Bush makes his State of the Union Address he speaks very clearly, his words are well-chosen and his speechwriters are obviously top-of-the-class. They communicate very well, and for the most part every single person who listens or watches the address knows exactly what George Bush is trying to say. Speechwriters learning the craft would do well to emulate the skill and technique of Bush’s speechwriters. Even so, the address is a bunch of statements that most people disagree with: most people want the U.S. out of Iraq and observe that the efforts there have largely been a failure. Even Bush’s own party is now alienated. But the State of the Union Address itself is well-executed: it’s clear communication…Bush is just sending the wrong message.

My problem with this statement is that it’s a poor analogy because it contains a false conclusion. You assume, incorrectly, that a message is “wrong” if it is not one that the majority of the audience agrees with. You go on to write that “if the message you’re sending isn’t the one the audience wants to hear then the overall design will be a failure.” This may well be true in some endeavors, but it is not true in politics. Leadership does not consist of pandering to people by sending a message they want to hear. As such, the “right” message might be one that the audience does like or agree with, but is ultimately true.

As to your larger question, I see nothing wrong with discussing politics (or religion) and design if it’s relevant to combine the two – but doing so merely for the sake of analogy is simply asking for trouble and likely to distract from your primary argument.

The author of the piece you link is talking about the politics of design. You used a poorly crafted political analogy to try to make a point about design. If someone wrote, “switching all your sites to XHTML is like giving women the vote – it seems like a good idea at first, but will end in disaster,” that’s not “talking about politics and design at the same time,” that’s insulting millions of people.

The biggest problem with your analogy is that you equate popularity with correctness. Bush is sending the wrong message on Iraq, because most of the public disagrees with him. Is he sending the right message on gay marriage? He has much more public support there. Was Bush sending the right message in 2004? Was Reagan in 1984?

Was Howard Dean sending the wrong message?

To move away from politics, is Steve Jobs sending the wrong message?

Every time Steve Jobs makes his Macworld Keynote Speech he speaks very clearly, his words are well-chosen and his speechwriters are obviously top-of-the-class. They communicate very well, and for the most part every single person who listens or watches the address knows exactly what Steve Jobs is trying to say. Speechwriters learning the craft would do well to emulate the skill and technique of Job. Even so, the address is a bunch of statements that most people disagree with: most people buy PCs. But the speech itself is well-executed: it’s clear communication…Jobs is just sending the wrong message.

I don’t think you would say that about Macs, because you know and respect people who use Macs. But a casual assertion that a Bush speech has an “impact on society may be minimal or, even worse, negative”? You’re apparently so closed minded you can’t even understand why that would be considered insulting. Fine. Your blog. Like you say, I can always unsubscribe.