Design as higher-order problem solving
Is design just a form of problem solving or is there more to it? And what does it have to do with experience?
Now that I have wrapped up my initial series and even rounded it off with a presentation, I spend a lot of time looking at this huge gap between these existential philosophical insights and their practical application in design and engineering. Turns out that gap is still huge, and the bridge I have tried to build is not much more than a flimsy rope dangling over it. Understandably, most people looking at that rope quickly conclude, “Nah, that’s not for me.”
And then the world turns and stuff happens and we get pulled into our usual habits and patterns. This week, Apple unveiled their vision of spatial computing, and of course, a lot of people have opinions. Perhaps a good time to talk a little bit about design and problem solving, and how they are similar, but not quite the same.
“What is it for?”
Nine minutes of professionally produced product porn tell you all you need to know about the future that is coming to your living room in early 2024. Well, except one thing apparently. A lot of the tech pundits and early reviewers (as well as some of my friends) ask the same question: “What is it for?” Apparently, that we don’t really know yet. For some reason Apple has not satisfyingly answered this. Or have they? Is this even the right question to ask?
Obviously, we need to know what it is for, right? Why would we buy something — especially something as ridiculously expensive as this — if we don’t really understand what it is for?
Hmm…
What is your computer for? Work? Are you reading this on your computer? Are you working right now? Oh, it’s also for communicating, and browsing the internet, which is sometimes also work, but sometimes isn’t. Oh, and sometimes you just watch a video or play a game with it, so it’s also for entertainment. So what is your computer for exactly?
What about your phone? Oh, that’s for communicating with other people, obviously. Are you reading this on your phone? Well, I hope you pass this article on to somebody, or else you wouldn’t really be communicating, would you? And sometimes you just read with it, or watch videos, or play games. So what exactly is your phone for?
We could play this game all day. There are certain technologies in your life that aren’t easily defined by a single purpose, but have grown into something we use for a lot of different things. And yet, when some new technology comes along, one of the most important questions we have is, “What is it for?”
Categorization, again…
Here’s Facebook’s… I mean… Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg reacting to Apple’s Vision Pro:
Paraphrasing Zuckerberg in this interview with Lex Fridman:
Apple’s Vision Pro is in the same product category as Meta’s Quest and Quest Pro; they’re in many ways identical enough the be considered the same class of product, yet are slightly different in a few aspects.
One of the obvious differences between Meta’s Quest 3 and Apple’s Vision Pro is the price, or as Zuckerberg frames it, their affordability and therefore accessibility.
Meta has “sold tens of millions of Quest devices” validating Meta’s efforts in this product category, whereas Apple has yet to prove that they will sell any (and Zuckerberg points out that based on rumors Apple seems to not expect to sell more than one million of its Vision Pro).
Lastly he comments on the different areas of focus the two companies have: Meta is all about social interaction, communication, being active, fitness, games, whereas Apple’s launch material was mostly about people sitting and looking at screens.
One important way for us to understand things, is to be able to put them in categories that make sense to us. Look at how everything Zuckerberg says is ultimately about categorizing the two products and the two companies.
This is, of course, a sign for how deeply we are inhabiting the having mode. Categorizing things gives us control over them. If we know what category a thing belongs to, we know how to deal with it, we know how to manipulate it, we know what it is for. And we can replace it with something else from the same category. Just like Zuckerberg is suggesting that if you like what you see in that Apple video, you could just get a much cheaper Quest 3, and that’ll be essentially the same thing.
Now there are of course various reasons for him to frame it like that, some of which have to do with him being the CEO of a competitor who has just bet the farm on his company’s future to be in exactly the space that Apple is now finally entering as well.
It also reminds me of various conversations I had in the past about, fascinatingly, almost always Apple products. There have been many discussions about if and why a Mac is superior to a PC. And, more recently, there were more discussions about if and why an iPhone is superior to an Android phone. And the arguments are always the same:
If you’re on the Apple side than the user experience is clearly better and the design is so qualitatively different that it justifies a much higher price.
And if you’re on the other side then you get basically the same thing or more, and often more features and flexibility with the other product.
Naturally, never was any one of those arguments ever compelling enough to convince the other side to change their minds.
I had long assumed that something fundamental is going on here that essentially means that both sides are absolutely correct in their beliefs, and just completely talk past each other, because they talk about fundamentally different things.
Solving problems
The having mode enables us to solve problems. Possessing, controlling, and manipulating objects of a certain category empowers us to be more effective and efficient. Naturally, technology often falls into such categories that give us more power over our environment. And if we understand the category well, we can utilize that power to achieve (better) results.
Combined with an objectivist world view, where our subjective experience is objectively irrelevant and it is all about the features and performance that are inherent to the object, there must be objective standards of which object is better at achieving those results. We may have personal idiosyncratic preferences and taste that still make us purchase different products, but when we do so we accept that we are making a subjective choice and may end up with an objectively inferior product, just because our judgement is somewhat clouded and overshadowed by our idiosyncrasy.
In a world dominated by the having mode, every choice becomes a solution to a problem, and there are good and bad solutions and therefore good and bad choices. We are still free to make our own choices, but we have to accept that sometimes we make objectively bad ones, driven by our subjective desires that pull us away from what’s objectively true and good.
To make objectively good choices, we need to understand the world around us in such a way that we assign the correct categories, and to do so it often helps enormously if we know what something is for. Or more specifically, what the problem is that this thing will help us solve. Because only then are we able to judge how well the thing does that.
As a trained and experienced engineer I can tell you that the experience of solving a difficult problem is a very addictive one. But not all of life is about solving problems, even though it is attractive to look at everything in the world as if it was a problem that needs solving — especially for an engineer who is any good at their job.
Our measure of success in today’s world is usually the result — did we successfully solve the problem? When I watch the Apple Vision Pro video above, I don’t see anybody solving any problems. I don’t even see them trying. I see people immersed in an experience. And Apple pointing out how it has designed that experience.
Designing experiences
The great thing about my computer is that it is not designed to solve a specific set of problems, but instead has been designed primarily to provide a certain experience. The same thing is true for my phone. And it looks like (and yes, I was slightly worried that it would be different this time, but it seems like it isn’t going to be) the same thing will be true for my future spatial computing device.
Designing a product can be framed as solving a complex set of interdependent problems. And then engineer-types come in and figure out the objective parameters that need to be weighted and calibrated in that complex network of interrelated issues, metrics are defined and measured, A/B tests are conducted, feedback is collected, and product-market fit is approached until sales numbers validate that you did a good job and solved the problem well. And from what I know, that is roughly how it works at Meta and Google and most other tech companies.
Or you could just try something out and see how it feels.
Wait, what?
That’s ridiculous!
Or is that what design is really about?
When you put on Apple Vision Pro, you see your world and everything in it.
In a way, using a device that gets exclusive control over what you see and what you hear — a significant portion of how you experience the world — requires a lot of trust in that device.
The first thing Apple thinks is a good idea to show you when you put it on, is exactly what you saw before you put it on. This is not a conclusion you will come to, if you are trying to solve a specific problem. This is a conclusion you come to, when you listen to how it feels.
Taking away your environment and replacing it with a completely different and unfamiliar one is by definition disorienting and uncomfortable. Yes, if you have a good enough reason to put it on, because you have a problem that you want to solve and you know that this is going to help you solve it, than you might be willing to accept the temporary discomfort and do what needs to be done — like the good, compliant problem solver you are.
But you can already tell that Apple’s approach is different before you even start using it. The “use cases” presented next in the video are all driven by how it looks, sounds, and feels. You see people browsing their photos, watching movies, playing games, browsing the web, and, yes, working and communicating with others — several use cases Mark Zuckerberg apparently didn’t notice.
The “problems” being “solved” in this video are lame, if you look at it like that. However, it is not about the problems! It is all about the experience. The scenarios are just there to give you context, situations you are familiar with. It will be up to you to figure out how this thing will help you with some of the problems you may have. Until then you get a feeling for what the experience will be like.
Apple has always approached their products from this experience perspective first. Solving problems or finding jobs to be done was always a secondary activity that is enabled and hopefully enhanced by that experience. What these problems are, is up to you, not Apple.
In a way they in designing a good experience they are doing higher-order problem solving. They try to create an experience that enables you to be the best possible problem solver this technology can enable you to be. Or at least have a bloody good time with whatever it is you are doing while using it.
Making meaning
Sometimes there are design decisions that you discover that are profound. They take the air out of the room when you see them for the first time, because they are so obvious. After you experienced them, there is no going back. The world has changed. Your world has changed.
How do I scroll […]?
I just take my finger, and I scroll.
The iPhone wasn’t successful because Apple solved the problem of scrolling. But the way they designed the experience has become the obvious way of scrolling everywhere, because it just makes sense. They made meaning.
You had me at scrolling.
You don’t get to such results purely with a problem solving approach. You have to discover these insights as you focus on your experience, as you live and play in the context that you have created and as you listen to how it feels in the moment. As you are in the being mode, reciprocally realizing how that context changes you as you change it.
We don’t know yet, if Vision Pro will make meaning in the same way the iPhone did. We just have to wait and see if Meta’s Quest 3 and future products from Apple’s competitors suddenly do things the way Apple does, because they are now obviously the best way to do things.
It's in Apple's DNA that technology alone is not enough; that it's technology married with liberal arts, married with the humanities, that yields us the result that makes our hearts sing.
Perhaps the most important problem for us to solve right now, is to figure out how we can “make our hearts sing”.
Mirror of the Self is a (bi-?)weekly newsletter series investigating the connection between creators and their creations, trying to understand the process of crafting beautiful objects, products, and art.
Using recent works of cognitive scientist John Vervaeke and design theorist Christopher Alexander, we embark on a journey to find out what enables us to create meaningful things that inspire awe and wonder in the people that know, use, and love them.
If you are new to this series, start here: 01 • A secular definition of sacredness.
Overview and synopsis of articles 01-13: Previously… — A Recap.
Overview and synopsis of articles 14-26: Previously… — recap #2.
My recent presentation Finding Meaning in The Nature of Order.