The importance of judgment in design (as opposed to art) is secondary to inventiveness. That does not mean judgment is unimportant, but that when objective tests of a design’s functionality are available the importance of knowing what will and won’t work is partially supplanted by the testing. When testing is available the role of judgment is to eliminate obviously nonviable designs and to choose among the viable candidates the design most likely to test well. But neither native judgment nor testing is generative. The scope of testable possibilities is determined by the inventiveness of a designer.

*

Especially in competitive situations, where solidly usable and useful options already exist for users, and some other differentiating advantage is necessary, a designer capable of imagining many coherent approaches that possess the right qualities (qualities that intersect with the spirit of the brand and the desires of the target users) is more valuable than one who generates reliable, unimaginative ones. The availability of testing means designers are free to try new approaches at a much lower risk than full implementation trial-and-error.

In fact, designers are now not only free but increasingly obligated to take risky new approaches, precisely because the availability of testing has made good usefulness and usability the norm. The first two-dimensions of experience, which are easily attainable through method, are now just table stakes. Knowledge of methodology is no longer enough. Inventiveness supplies the differentiating third dimension of on-brand desirability, and that is a matter of talent as well as technique. To be competitive in the new environment a designer must know how to generate useful and usable experiences that are also both desirable and deeply on-brand. It is easy to be superficially on brand, by looking cool/professional/appealing within the bounds of graphic standards. To be deeply, behaviorally on brand means to execute every apparent and behavioral detail with precisely the right style. It isn’t enough to dress the part of on-brand desirability, or even just to act it. The design must be the brand authentically, and in positive relationship with the user.

*

Culturally, the availability of usability testing is great news for designers. If you were to survey designers on the most and least pleasant aspects of their job, ideation would certainly fall on the “most pleasant” end of the spectrum and arguing with clients over matters of judgment would land at the extreme of “least pleasant”. Testing can foster a spirit of collaboration, where the ultimate questions of functionality are settled in laboratory experiments, as opposed to in conference room conflicts where in reality the designer is close to powerless. The question is no longer “which of us is more qualified to know what will work?” or “which of us is the ultimate decider?” but rather, “which design should we try first?” The latter is a much more enjoyable conversation.

This pertains not only to usability. Usefulness is even more easily tested. Desirability and conformity to brand are slightly more difficult to test, but not excessively difficult.