personal
position
towards
them
yet.
What
will
strongly
and
Ali Al Yousifi
Lets imagine two houses sitting side by side. They are of about the
same size, but designed very differently. Living in one house makes a certain
user happy (review definition above), while living in the other makes that
same user sad. If the design of the houses alone is responsible for this
emotional disparity, which house is designed better? Although I cant claim
an objective answer to this question, I would confidently say that most
people would agree that the design that makes the user happier is the better
design, and consequently makes the better house. After all, the design of any
house is meant to serve its users needs, and allow them to lead better lives.
The goal of the previous example is only to illustrate that judging
architectural design quality (and in fact of anything else) according to user
satisfaction is a legitimate method of assessment. This holds even when
taking into account that user satisfaction is subjective and will differ among
users. It actually explains why a number of designs can be very different,
and yet equally good: each design is formalized to serve the different needs
of different users. The previous arguments can be summarized in the
following principle: A design of a building that makes its users happy
is better for those specific users than a design that would make
them sad.
If this was the sole principle by which we understand the user /
building relationship, then whenever there is a deficiency in user satisfaction,
our only option would be to change the design to better fit the users needs.
Ali Al Yousifi
But the previous principle is lacking, mainly because it assumes that the only
variable in the user / building relationship is the design, while users are,
although different, equal in their effectiveness at being users.
To better illustrate this point, lets further develop the example of the
two houses. What if there were two users that both had a chance to live in
each house. If the first user was happy with the design of both houses, while
the second user could only be happy with the design of one house, which
user is better? This question might seem counterintuitive, but users do
indeed vary in their ability to embrace architectural designs. And I claim that
better users are those who are able to embrace a wider spectrum of designs.
This is because just like a house is meant to serve the users needs, and
allow them to lead better lives; equally so, a user is meant to embrace the
design of the house and make use of it. Just like a design of a building can
disappoint the users expectations, the users negative attitude can stop the
building from reaching its potential. The user is no less important to a
buildings success than the building itself.
Its critical to be very clear here: this is not to encourage complacency
with bad design, nor is to suggest that all designs are of equal quality, or
that we should treat designs of varying quality equally. It is instead to
recognize that the ability to appreciate and embrace a wider spectrum of
designs is a skill, one that shows a deeper and more sophisticated
understanding of architectural design. And that being able to only appreciate
Ali Al Yousifi
and embrace a narrow selection of what the world of architectural design has
to offer is anything but a sign of refinement; it rather shows an incompetent
and boring understanding of architectural design.
And so we can state another principle: A user who can be happy
with the design of a building is a better user of that particular
building than a user who cannot; Of course this is assuming that both
users have similar programmatic needs. The main point here is that users of
architecture are not equal. There are better users and worse users. And an
architectural education is not necessarily a path towards being a better user;
in fact it can even be detrimental to the basic instinctive skills that make a
good user.
Having broad knowledge in the history and theory of architecture
might make you a great critic; having extensive experience in construction
sites might make you a great builder; having a prolific career designing many
successful buildings might make you a great designer; but it does not make
you a good user. In fact, you can even design, build, analyze, write about,
and live in a fantastic house, and yet be a mediocre user of it.
A good user of a building is someone who can gather personal
happiness from that building. A good user, despite being able to critically
understand a buildings shortcomings, can also appreciate all the small
advantages of the buildings design, may they be intrinsic to the design or
even forced by the user. When columns are not aligned, a bad user
Ali Al Yousifi
Ali Al Yousifi