The diï¬€erent patterns (initially just those featured on the poster) have each been given a badge (or two) showing whether they have the eï¬€ect of enabling, motivating, or constraining user behaviour:
Enabling ‘desirable’ behaviour by making it easier for the user than the alternatives
Motivating users to change behaviour by education, incentives and changing attitudes
Constraining users to ‘desirable’ behaviour by making alternatives diï¬ƒcult or impossible
This way of classifying the patterns can be useful to think about when you’re coming up with concepts and evaluating them. What are you trying to achieve in terms of inï¬‚uencing behaviour? How would you react, as a user, faced with the design? Would it inï¬‚uence your behaviour? Why?
Much work in Persuasive Technology has taken the approach of motivating behaviour, with attitude change usually a precursor, but BJ Fogg’s reduction and tunnelling (Fogg, 2003) are arguably also about enabling particular behaviours by making them simpler (see also Maeda, 2006). Buckminster Fuller’s ‘trimtab’ concept–“modify[ing] the environment in such a way as to get man moving in preferred directions” (Krausse & Lichtenstein, 2001)–also accords with the enabling approach and provides a link to the wider field of design for social benefit. Human factors strategies aimed at influencing behaviour in a health and safety context often employ a constraining approach.
The approach used in practice–and hence the patterns and concepts chosen for further development–may, of course, be dictated by the client or other stakeholders rather than being the designer’s decision.
P.S. If you can come up with better icons (the ‘Constraining’ one does look rather intestinal), or your own classifications, please do let us know in the comments below…
Next: the patterns
The Design with Intent Toolkit v0.9 by Dan Lockton, David Harrison and Neville A. Stanton
Introduction | Behaviour | Architectural lens | Errorproofing lens | Persuasive lens | Visual lens | Cognitive lens | Security lens