What kind of white man do you aspire to be?
While conducting project research, I came across the following pitch on the L.A. Times website:

Upon clicking, I proceeded through a series of screens, each presenting a question and a grid of photos to select from as my response. The VisualDNA corporate site refers to these as “highly viral image quizzes.”

The grid above gave me particular pause. It’s asking the viewer to place themselves in one of those photos. As a white woman, I feel a little shut out. What about a black woman? What is she to make of that photo of a white guy hugging a displeased-looking black baby? How does that represent success to her?
This is a terrific example of the dangers inherent in using photos at the exclusion of words to represent the needs and mindset of your presumed audience.
It is nearly impossible to convey a generic aspect of the human experience with a photograph of a specific individual. I’ll admit an allowance for some few great artists.
Even those proffered grids pertaining to less highly-charged topics—such as choice of preferred treat or general topic of interest (books vs television)—require a lot of work and a cognitive leap. I squinted at an inch square image wondering whether it portrayed a laboratory or a prison. Once I figured out what the specific image represented, I then had to abstract to the category. Was I pondering my relative concern about prisons in general, or prison healthcare, or was that an execution chamber?
Why make people work so hard and risk neglecting or insulting huge swathes of your audience, particularly when you are trying to demonstrate how well you can learn their priorities and preferences? Is it really merely to justify a reductive, restrictive aesthetic choice?
The same technology could have easily used an interface like that of Hunch, which imposes a minimal cognitive burden on participants in its surveys and avoids the pitfalls of specific representation.
The L.A. Times serves and represents an immense, diverse population. While admirably embracing new ways to reach and understand people they stumbled into an old way to alienate them.








2 comments so far. Add yours below.
Bob says:
It's really laughable in so many ways. Seeing this is "Powered by Visual DNA" I went to their website to find out what that's all about. Since I don't allow Flash in my browser, I got a big blank page with the message: "Are you different?" Well, I guess I am, and as a result I can't make use of their website. So much for "highly viral," unless they're referring to Flash.
I also followed your link to Hunch which seems a bit creepy, to tell you the truth. Without signing up, I took one of their quizzes about a smart phone to see how it worked. Half way through it actually asked the question, "Are you an Apple Fan Boy?" Now, WTF? We hadn't gotten to my picking a model or anything by that stage, so what's the point of that question? Up until that point in the questions I hadn't indicated any preferences that would have drawn them to that conclusion. There wasn't any Microsoft Fan Boy (Girl) question or Palm Fan Boy (Girl) question or Android Fan Boy (Girl) question and on and on. If their silly assumption was that this was somehow a valid criteria or question, they should just cut right to the chase and asked me upfront, stopped the questioning right there, and offered the iPhone as my only choice.
Stupidity in web design doesn't just consider user interface and cognition.
February 4, 2010 3:00 PM
ray ban store says:
I enjoyed the article and thanks in greetings to posting such valuable tidings seeing that all of us to turn, I caste it both beneficial and educative and I devise to these days it as again as I can.
ray ban 3025
February 5, 2010 11:09 AM