Collecting data about design is easy in the digital world. We no longer have to conduct in-person experiments to track pedestrians’ behavior in an airport terminal or the movement of eyeballs across a page. New digital technologies allow us to easily measure almost anything, and apps, social media platforms, websites, and email programs come with built-in tools to track data.
And, as of late, data-driven design has become increasingly popular. As a designer, you no longer need to convince your clients of your design’s “elegance,” “simplicity,” or “beauty.” Instead of those subjective measures, you can give them data: click-through and abandonment rates, statistics on the number of installs, retention and referral counts, user paths, cohort analyses, A/B comparisons, and countless other analytical riches.
After you’ve mesmerized your clients with numbers, you can draw a few graphs on a whiteboard and begin claiming causalities. Those bad numbers? They’re showing up because of what you told the client was wrong with the old design. And the good numbers? They’re showing up because of the new and improved design.
But what if it’s not because of the design? What if it’s just a coincidence?
There are two problems with the present trend toward data-driven design: using the wrong data, and using data at the wrong time.
Let’s say you go through a major digital redesign. Shortly after you launch the new look, the number of users hitting the “share” button increases significantly. That’s great news, and you’re ready to celebrate the fact that your new design was such a success.
But what if the new design had nothing to do with it? You’re seeing a clear correlation—two seemingly related events that happened around the same time—but that does not prove that one caused the other.
Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, the authors of “Freakonomics,” have built a media empire on exposing the difference between correlation and causation. My favorite example is their analysis of the “broken windows” campaign carried out by New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Police Commissioner William Bratton. The campaign coincided with a drop in the city’s crime rate. The officials naturally took credit for making the city safer, but Levitt and Dubner make a very strong case that the crime rate declined for reasons other than their campaign.
Raw data doesn’t offer up easy conclusions. Instead, look at your data as a generator of promising hypotheses that must be tested. Is your newly implemented user flow the cause of a spike in conversion rates? It might be, but the only way you’ll know is by conducting an A/B test that isolates that single variable. Otherwise, you’re really just guessing, and all that data you have showing the spike doesn’t change that.
Data can’t direct innovation
Unfortunately, many designers are relying on data instead of creativity. The problem with using numbers to guide innovation is that users typically don’t know what they want, and no amount of data will tell you what they want. Instead of relying on data from the outset, you have to create something and give it to users before they can discover that they want it.
Steve Jobs was a big advocate of this method. He didn’t design devices and operating systems by polling users or hosting focus groups. He innovated and created, and once users saw what he and his team had produced, they fell in love with a product they hadn’t even known they wanted.
Data won’t tell you what to do during the design process. Innovation and creativity have to happen before data collection, not after. Data is best used for testing and validation.
Product development and design is a cyclical process. During the innovation phase, creativity is often based on user experience and artistry — characteristics that aren’t meant to be quantified on a spreadsheet. Once a product is released, it’s time to start collecting data.
Perhaps the data will reveal a broken step in the user flow. That’s good information because it directs your attention to the problem. But the data won’t tell you how to fix the problem. You have to innovate again, then test to see if you’ve finally fixed what was broken.
Ultimately, data and analysis should be part of the design process. We can’t afford to rely on our instincts alone. And with the wealth of data available in the digital domain, we don’t have to. The unquantifiable riches of the creative process still have to lead design, but applying the right data at the right time is just as important to the future of design.
by Rameet Chawla