Against Human-Centered Design

Human-centered design, while focusing on human needs, often overlooks the intricate connections between humanity and the environment. This tunnel vision perpetuates a worldview that neglects the broader ecological context, exacerbating environmental crises.

Throughout history, the practice of design has concerned itself with orchestrating the contact between two instances of seemingly different natures: human beings and the environment surrounding them. Design acts as a mediator at its core, crafting that “something” that lies “in between” both instances. This intermediary role manifests in creating both tangible and intangible devices, which serve as conduits for shaping spatial, temporal, and corporeal configurations that continually redefine the human experience.

At least since the 19th century, design has undertaken the ambitious task of managing this “contra natura” contact by striving to mitigate or eradicate friction between humanity and its environment. Even the concept of “good design,” as promulgated by modern design principles, epitomizes this endeavor. Ethically and aesthetically driven, good design aims to produce seamless and frictionless interfaces, interactions, and surfaces, thereby alleviating the economic, functional, and social frictions associated with the proliferation of machinery in modern human environments.

This pursuit of frictionless interaction contributes to a longstanding anthropocentric tradition that spans millennia, tracing its roots from ancient Egyptian architects to contemporary luminaries such as Vitruvius, da Vinci, Neufert, and Le Corbusier. Central to this tradition is the anthropometric study of human proportions, which is the foundational basis for designing objects and spaces tailored to the dimensions, movements, capabilities, and needs of the “normal” or normative human body. However, scholars like Colomina and Wigley¹ argue that although design claims to serve humans, its true ambition is to redesign them. Therefore, through design, humans inadvertently reshape the very essence of being human.

Drawing called The Vitruvian Man, created by Leonardo da Vinci around 1490. It is a study of the proportions of the human body, based on texts by Vitruvius, an architect from ancient Rome. It shows a male figure inscribed in a circle and a square. This refers to the idea that the geometry of the cosmos is embedded in the proportions of the “well-formed man” who has been “designed by nature.”

Moreover, this tradition espouses human comfort and satisfaction values while aligning with rational and market-driven logics such as efficiency, effectiveness, utility, and savings. These values are widely spread and permeate nearly every facet of our surroundings, from tangible artifacts like objects and buildings to ostensibly neutral concepts like “ergonomics” and “human-centered design.”

Yet, beneath the surface lies a deeply ideological conception of humanity and its relationship with the designed environment. Humanity is not a static construct but rather a dynamic and multifaceted one. The traditional portrayal of the human body within design practice as a normative ideal is restrictive and fundamentally flawed.

Moreover, as evidenced by posthumanist discourses, this conception of the human body is also misguided, deceptive, and even dangerous. We humans are not simply human. Our human body is a complex amalgamation of various species, with more than 60% of our cells being non-human². In fact, from an organic perspective, the boundaries between internal and external become blurred, with the body serving as a porous membrane constantly in flux through myriad interactions and exchanges, like those when we eat, breathe, or medicate, for example.

This flawed understanding of humanity leads to the central critique of human-centered design: its inherent tendency to separate humanity from the broader ecological context. It makes a vain distinction between what is “human” and “everything else.” By narrowly focusing on human needs and desires, human-centered design neglects the intricate web of life that sustains existence on Earth. It perpetuates a worldview where design is intended for a minuscule part of life on Earth. It responds to the needs of those who constitute just 0.01% of life on the planet³ — that is, human beings — while relegating the remaining 99.99% to the “resource” category.

In light of the environmental emergency and humanitarian challenges we face today, it is imperative to reevaluate our approach to design. Human-centered design, with its myopic focus on human needs and desires, not only fails to address the root causes of these crises but also exacerbates them. Instead, a more holistic and ecologically sensitive approach is needed — one that transcends anthropocentrism and embraces the interconnectedness of all life on Earth. Only then can design genuinely serve as a catalyst for positive change, fostering sustainability, resilience, and harmony within the complex web of life.

¹ COLOMINA, Beatriz y WIGLEY, Mark, Are We Human? Notes on an
archaeology of design, Lars Müller Publishers, Baden, 2017, p. 9.

² GALLAGUER, James, “More than half your body is not human”, BBC. [Online] <https://www.bbc.com/news/health-43674270>.

³ CARRINGTON, Damian, “Humans just 0.01% of all life but have destroyed 83% of wild mammals — study”, The Guardian. [Online] <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/21/human-race-just-001-of-all-life-but-has-destroyed-over-80-of-wild-mammals-study>.