For the Heartbroken Designers
The belief in the failure of design usually comes from rejection. Which, in its own bubble, seems like a quaint psychological matter. A boy rejected by a girl does not mean a failure of the boy’s existence or the parents’ failure. Rather, it explains the partiality of the girl at a certain moment in time. Design, in its visual and physical form, is the delivery of communication. What mere words, ideas, thoughts there were, it rises from one entity to another to become an object of confession. The confession itself has not failed. In other words, the delivery of communication in itself did not fail. It may have inefficiencies or a lack of clearness but never fail. Rejection is a reaction, given to the design, and that reaction is solely the subjectivity of the giver, not the definite truth.
The point of rejection is another form of communication. In some ways, the rejection itself augments the designer’s value, as it displays the trust of a better outcome or at least an expectation of one. It’s never easy to clarify the forms of communication between two completely different entities. We, as designers, have placed methodologies to remedy this inefficiency. It seems today we mostly call it User Experience Research or Brand Research or whatever other words, the point in being, the methodologies themselves are tools for getting to know one another. Today, it seems methodologies are necessary.
Going back to the story of the boy and girl. The boy’s object of confession, a flower, rejected by the girl does not belittle the flower’s beauty nor the boy’s existence. It displays the state of the girl’s partiality. Perhaps she wanted a box of chocolates or, instead of one flower, a dozen flowers. Conjecturing what the girl wants or wanting the boy to mindread is a phenomenon that happens too often in business. Businesses have matches. The outcome of a wrong match is heartbreaking, whereas a good match, well, we all know that they lived happily ever after. Sort of. But the main question we want to ask is: “How does one get a good match?” Do we leave it to chance? No matter how strong your attraction is, you would always want a date before any commitments. It is also your responsibility to let people know you want time to get to know each other before committing to anything.
When working as designers with clients, designers often believe tasks are given to deliver. The deliveries are rejected through a first, second, and ongoing amount of micro/macro revisions. It is exhausting handling a near-infinite amount of revisions and difficult enough as we seldom meet the clients. Our first meeting usually determines the dynamic between the designer and the client. Imagine your date, whom you physically meet once a month, criticizing every day for what you wear. Generally, no one in their right mind would like to set the relationship to be abusive from the start. It’s also strenuous later as designers spend more time with the work to be delivered, and we start projecting ourselves unto it. Unconsciously setting up a defense mechanism to any feedback and then even holding a grudge against those who give constructive feedback.
If you watch films, successful love stories happen through two main criteria: when one person realizes who the other person is; and when a solid relationship is built from honest communication. Time spent together brings upon a realization, and honest communication starts with the truth.
Design methodologies are core tools to spend time together with the client and create solid relationships with truths. Along the way, respecting each other is a natural process for this event that utilizes time. In a sense, a designer can never fail because it is our job to take time and communicate truths. At another time, I may write about more on methodologies, but for the time being, if you’ve been heartbroken, don’t take it personally; it’s not you. You’ve just yet to meet the right match. Until then, keep dating.
Throughout my life, I’ve been an Interactive Design student. Starting from architecture to general media design & UX design and recently to web technologies. Though I still find old-school branding/graphic design fascinating and much more useful in connecting meaning between humans. Started writing to see if any of what I learned is resourceful to anyone out there. So any feedback and comments are welcomed.
I believe in researching the role and usage of emergent technologies in designing daily human life and human culture. Currently, a Creative Generalist Design Director for an agency.
