Bad Design is Great

Bad design is great. Obviously, it’s “bad,” but because it’s bad, it’s great. Why? Simply because there is so much to learn from “bad” design. That is, calling something “bad” can be pedagogical to the “bad-sayer.” But what exactly do we mean when we call a design bad? To unpack this question, we need to examine the interplay between “bad design” and the perspectives we bring to it.

In exploring bad design, I will introduce a cast of characters: the engineer, the designer, and the user. Each represents a unique worldview and philosophical approach to creation and interaction. Central to understanding these characters is the distinction between realism and anti-realism: a debate about whether the truths of the world are objective and fixed or constructed and subjective. This philosophical lens matters because it shapes how each character perceives “badness” and, more importantly, how they respond to it. Through these perspectives, we can see how bad design is not just a failure but an opportunity for growth, collaboration, and deeper understanding.

The Engineer

The caricature of an engineer embodies the position of a realist, more so a naive realist. Objective truths govern the world to them, and these truths can be understood, measured, and applied through methods like engineering principles. There is nothing wrong at face value with this; it is very pragmatic to take this stance as most of the curriculum is about describing the world through mathematical formulas. However, it seems to be an insurmountable challenge to engineers when tasked with the creation of anything which requires value judgments.

To quote Steve Jobs:

“It’s technology married with the liberal arts, married with the humanities, that yields the results that make our hearts sing.”

The Designer

Thus enters our second character: the designer. The designer here believes that everything in the world is a construct of the mind. The world is not objectively fixed but rather exists as a collection of constructs shaped by human perception, experience, and interpretation. To be clear, this is not the sort of anything that goes interpretivist-beat horse that is commonly and rightfully critiqued. The designer here touts the middle line of realism and anti-realism. The techniques they employ to deal with intersubjectivity, psychology, and contextual factors. But, and an important but, the designer still holds the position that these principles hold objectively in a context.1. Again, it makes pragmatic sense why the designer holds this position; without it, they wouldn’t understand the devil that is their users.

Users

Users. Engineers and designers are taught to love them; if not, try to understand them. Usually, the two just hate them. Suppose I were to charge any of our cast members with the title of being a relativist; it would-be users. Users always break things. On the engineering end, users overload the system, create security vulnerabilities, bypass constraints, and, more generally, cause a great deal of chaos. To the engineer, the user is being an incredible pest to their “perfectly designed system” by bringing in their “obviously dumb human error.” On the design end, users misuse the product, straying orthogonally from the intended UX, becoming frustrated with the product, and ultimately giving the product a negative review. Now, the designer has to go back to the drawing board. In product development, the user really is an enigma.

So what does this blog’s dramatis personae say on the nature of “bad” design? Not much explicitly. But if I had subtly convinced you to agree more with being a constructivist, at least in product design, then my job is done 2. I argue that the position taken by the designer makes the most pragmatic sense here 3. The constructivist position comes in handy when dealing with the problem (or joy) of user mayhem and being able to “actually” go back to the drawing board. Bad design, then, when viewed through a constructivist lens, isn’t an absolute failure; instead, it becomes a learning tool. It’s an opportunity to better understand how users interact with a product and where the design can be more adaptable, intuitive, and human-centered.


  1. In the virtue of being fair, I would also say that the designer sometimes entirely skips over what can be done. This point is commonly made in the realm of building and architecture. ↩

  2. In The Design of Everyday Things, Norman’s terminology aligns with that of many post-structuralist/constructivist thinkers. ↩

  3. I admit the term “naive realist” is more a pejorative, but even more intellectually thought-out forms of realism still seem less “virtuous” in this case. ↩