OMA's Design Process and the User

Summary

The Seattle Public Library, designed by OMA, is both a striking architectural achievement and a disorienting space. Despite meticulous user-focused design, including mockups, public testing, and the development of personas for different user types, the library's complexity leads to unpredictable user experiences. The building's design reflects a tension between usability and innovation, with OMA's desire to break conventions sometimes conflicting with the practical needs of its visitors. Ultimately, the library’s intricate design challenges users while offering a unique architectural experience.

Takeaways

• 😀 The Seattle Public Library is considered a disorienting building, and its design is seen as problematic from a user experience perspective.
• 😀 The initial theory was that the problems stemmed from architects not fully understanding the needs of library users, a concept known as 'perspective-taking' in psychology.
• 😀 The theory was revised after reading ethnographer Alina Yaneva’s study, which revealed that OMA (Office for Metropolitan Architecture) had conducted extensive user research and user testing, including building full-size mockups of the library for public feedback.
• 😀 OMA invited local wheelchair users to test the usability of the spiral book ramp, indicating a level of consideration for accessibility in their design process.
• 😀 OMA differentiated between two primary user types: 'knowledge acquirers,' who come to deepen their knowledge, and 'information gatherers,' who have specific, short-term goals like finding a single book quickly.
• 😀 The building’s design reflects these two user types by considering how they move through the space differently, with distinct circulation routes for each group within the book spiral.
• 😀 OMA used 'personas' in their design process, which are user archetypes that help guide design decisions. These were depicted through diagrams showing different scenarios and the user’s journey through the library.
• 😀 The user scenarios in OMA’s design consider specific needs and tasks, revealing that the library’s circulation routes vary depending on the user's objectives, such as whether they are a knowledge acquirer or an information gatherer.
• 😀 Despite OMA’s deep thought about the user experience, their design sometimes conflicted with their desire for innovation and architectural 'edginess,' leading to issues with usability in certain areas of the library.
• 😀 The final conclusion suggests that the complexity of the building, both spatially and programmatically, makes it difficult to predict all user interactions, leading to an unpredictable experience for users, regardless of the architects’ expertise.

Q & A

What is the primary focus of the discussion in the video script?

The primary focus is on the design of the Seattle Public Library by the Office for Metropolitan Architecture (OMA) and how it both excels and falls short in terms of user experience, particularly in relation to its usability and navigation.

How does the script define the main issue with the Seattle Public Library?

The main issue is that the building, while architecturally stunning, is disorienting for users due to its complexity and the conflict between usability and the desire for innovative design.

What was the initial theory about the building's problems?

The initial theory was that the design flaws were simply a result of the architects failing to fully consider the perspectives of library users, a concept known as 'perspective taking' in psychology.

What led the speakers to revise their initial theory?

They revised their theory after reading Alina Yaneva's ethnographic study of OMA, which showed that the architects had actually put significant effort into considering user needs, including conducting tests with mockups and involving the public.

How did OMA involve the public in the design process?

OMA involved the public by creating full-size mockups of key features of the building, such as the book spiral, and invited local wheelchair users to test the building's accessibility.

What are the two primary types of users identified by OMA in the design?

OMA identified two primary types of users: 'knowledge acquirers', who come to deepen their knowledge, and 'information gatherers', who visit with a specific, often quick, task in mind, such as retrieving a single book.

What was the role of 'personas' in OMA's design process?

Personas, in this case, were user archetypes used to guide design decisions. OMA used reference strategy scenarios, which visually depicted different users with their tasks and corresponding circulation paths through the building.

What insight does the use of personas provide about OMA's design approach?

The use of personas suggests that OMA thought carefully about different user needs and movement patterns within the library, tailoring the design to accommodate various types of visitors and their goals.

What was the ultimate conclusion about the building's design?

The conclusion was that the design of the library is both innovative and stunning but suffers from usability issues, especially due to the complexity of the building and its conflicting design goals, which sometimes prioritized architectural novelty over practicality.

How does the complexity of the Seattle Public Library affect its usability?

The building's spatial and programmatic complexity makes it impossible to predict all interactions within the space. This unpredictability, coupled with the conflict between usability and innovative design, leads to difficulties in navigating the building.