An artist can paint what appeals to him and hope it will appeal to others, or he may ignore his potential audience and simply bring into being that which compels him – without regard for the consequences. As an artist, I have that freedom, that right, as a designer when I look away from my audience I’m courting failure. While artists, the good ones, often test the limits of their license, designers, the good ones, often do better to work within the constraints of their permit – consulting their audience at every turn.

A painter tries to create a world, or an atmosphere or evoke an emotion or a memory. If he is lucky, his creation embodies elements that are personal and universal. The viewer brings with him a history of experiences, and when his experiences coincide with those represented in a work of art he achieves aesthetic appreciation. With an intimate understanding of the human condition, great artists inspire great appreciation.

In the realm of design, viewers (users) also bring their experiences to our work, but rather than an aesthetic “gotcha” moment, probably the best we can hope for is a realization more on the level of “oh, yeah, got it”. Where’s the love? you ask – well in a world full of distractions, complications, and miscues, I think we should accept ‘got it’ as high praise. While our designs may not inspire tears or poetry, there is something to be said for creating order from chaos, for preventing even one outburst of frustration; and in the realm of inducing emotions, invoking a sense of synergy is no small feat.

Design is art with an objective. Design has consequences, sometimes severe ones, and is judged by whether it fulfils the needs of its audience or not. As an experience designer, I put the “face” on an application that would be unintelligible otherwise (unless you’re a Java coder). But I like to think that I am doing more than applying make-up to methods - I like to think that I am like the flashlight wielding usher at the top of the dark theatre
stairs. . .