Dialectic decision-making in design
Exploring ephemeral ideas to design for the space between
Choices, choices
This or that. Yes or no. Here or there.
Choices can overwhelm us in the design process. What about the path we didn’t choose? Colleagues will entrench themselves in their idea, with the zero-sum assumption that if their idea isn’t pursued, then it will be forgotten, de-prioritized, and sent to the abyss of designs-not-realized.
While there are times when a clear choice is necessary, more often than not, a great solution lies somewhere between black and white. At Craft, we have refined a method of design and user inquiry that brings us to the gray area in the middle, where the most effective elements of individual ideas can be combined into a single, widely satisfying user experience.
Dialectic decision-making in design draws from truths explored in the Hegelian dialectic framework. Stay with me here, as we descend into 19th century German philosophy for a moment (philosophers, please don’t come for me). The Hegelian dialectic is a framework developed through the work of German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. At its simplest, it states that in progress toward truth, there is a thesis, which gives rise to a reaction or antithesis, and then a synthesis of the two into a third idea. That third idea, in an ideal world, has the best parts of the thesis and antithesis incorporated into it. And thus, that synthesis becomes a thesis, and the dialectic continues, with the goal being to eventually achieve Absolute Knowledge, or “knowledge that is unbiased, undistorted, unqualified, all-encompassing, free from counter-examples and internal inconsistencies.” We may never achieve Absolute Knowledge, but we can definitely make users’ lives easier.
The design dialectic
As designers and researchers, we can leverage the dialectic to inspire and inform new product concepts. We can take two disparate experiences, evaluate them, and then determine the most effective synthesis of the two concepts. A single design isn’t chosen (this isn’t traditional A/B testing) and we aren’t looking to consolidate completely contradictory ideas. Our aim with this method is to evaluate possibly disharmonious features all in service of the same goal. We want to understand which of them make sense together and which of them can be de-prioritized in a synthesized design.
One way to think of it is how designers often use semantic differential scales to define brand language or site tone (you know, the ones that say “friendly” on one side and “formal” on the other). Instead of plotting our mark on several scales, we use one scale, and blow out each end of it into fully fledged concepts, each with their own unique feature set. They may be hyperbolic concepts that would never be realized, or they may actually be practical executions of design. Then we determine where the final design should fall on that scale (ideally via user research).
Just as explaining the Hegelian dialectic is virtually impossible without an example, so is explaining the design dialectic. So here we go.
Thesis, antithesis, synthesis
Imagine that we’re working on a project where we’re designing a car insurance website. Our thesis may be one expression of a design. For instance, we could start with an extremely warm and welcoming insurance website that guides users through a workflow that shows them what plan is right for them. We talk to users and hear that this would be a direction worth exploring… but it isn’t the only direction worth exploring.
If this is the case, we could then consider an antithesis. What is another way of thinking about the insurance website that would be just as helpful? Perhaps our antithesis would be a calculator-heavy, open world experience that allows users to discover tools and make up their own minds about the right plan for them.
We would design both of these concepts independently, exploring features, layouts and interactions that would support each ‘thesis.’ These two ideas would aim to accomplish the same goal (getting people the insurance they need), but through vastly different means.
Once we create our concepts, we then explore and evaluate them with users. We show our research participants both concepts. When or why might they prefer to use Version A? When or why might they prefer to use Version B?
Once we’ve gathered information about the effectiveness of our thesis and antithesis, we can begin the synthesis process. What works about Version A? What works about Version B? When may we want to lean on a feature from Version A vs. B? Where can we combine elements of each? Eventually, our synthesis (Version C) is an expression of the most effective aspects of our thesis and antithesis. So perhaps our Version B open world framework works for the casual browser, but once a user decides to commit to an insurance plan, then our hand-holding ideas from Version A kick in for the quote flow.
Applying this framework
So when does it make sense to apply dialectic decision-making to a design problem instead of following a more traditional process?
When people can’t agree
A perfect time to put on your dialectic decision-making hat is when your team begins digging trenches around two ideas. The developers think this, the designers think that, and the research says something else entirely. Instead of A/B testing to choose one direction, consider how to combine oil and vinegar ideas into a tasty design vinaigrette.
When we’re short on time
We often don’t have time to come up with 6 unique concepts, but the client wants to see a wide range of ideas. Quickly defining a reasonable scale (based on research preferably) and conducting an ideation session around each end of the spectrum can be an efficient, fruitful way to get a wide range of ideas on paper quickly. It then folds nicely into a subsequent concept testing study to define how A and B could be combined into C.
When user types have wildly different needs
There’s a user that needs hand-holding, and a user who just wants the facts. There’s a user who needs a dashboard, and a user who needs a story. It’s very rare that an experience needs to serve a single digital user type, especially for consumer-facing products. Once we have user types defined, we can design 2–3 concepts around their unique needs. We can then evaluate and combine concepts to ensure that our designs meet the most important needs for each user group.
When we have great ideas, but we can’t fit them all in an MVP
We can use dialectic decision-making to whittle a design down from a massive list of big exciting features to something manageable for an initial release. One way to think about Versions A and B of a design is not so much as singular, whole concepts, but rather as collections of features. Let’s say the team came up with 10 feature ideas with 2–3 versions of each feature possible (for example, to support help, we could use live text chat or live video chat). We can group those features into concepts and then test them independently and against each other to determine what group of features across Versions A and B make the most sense to combine into Version C. We’ve done this by incorporating a short moderated Kano survey to the end of our dialectic testing sessions.
A+B=C if this works for you
Ultimately, dialectic decision-making in design provides you with a set of constraints that can feel liberating to work within, just like any other thematic, process or persona framework. Have fun with it. Pushing a concept far in a fleeting, temporary direction can give you the freedom to explore truly exciting ideas. Try it out, see how it goes, and remember that there are countless ways to design something well. Don’t get hung up on choosing just one.
Visuals and animation by Tanner Panetta 2022
