It’s Time for a Code of Ethics for Designers
By: Anton Sten
Tags: Design Thinking, Design, Ideas, Ethics, UX

It’s Time for a Code of Ethics for Designers

With so much influence over our lives and behavior, designers should be held to stricter standards

Photo: zennie/Getty Images

Lawyers, doctors, and even journalists have something in common: They all have studied ethics as part of their higher education, taking the time to construct, interpret, and follow written codes of conduct that guide them in making sound, ethical decisions. Is it a coincidence that these are also some of the world’s oldest professions?

The design profession has a long history too, but we’ve only recently started to discuss ethics in a design context. Design is all about the viewer: drawing the eye and changing the heart. It’s truly one of the most powerful tools (superpowers?) that companies have today, and that leaves us, the viewers, wanting — no, needing awareness and guidelines that ensure design is being practiced responsibly. With all the services and apps influencing our behavior and daily lives, is this too much to ask?

What are ethics?

Ethics can be a tricky subject to approach. Simply said, ethics are an agreed upon set of moral principles (rules) within a profession or community that ensure consistency in behavior and conduct. Looking at those older professions we talked about shows how complicated ethics can be, and also how necessary they are.

Lawyers are always required to act in their client’s best interest, regardless of their own interests or what they personally think is “right.” The right to legal representation and a fair trial are a keystone of our society.

Journalists, who we might think are just out to sell magazines or get clicks, are guided by a code of conduct for how to write news stories. For instance, a journalist must frame stories about crimes in a way that doesn’t allow the people involved to be judged before they’re convicted, and certain details are to be spared when children are involved.

Medical doctors have an ethical duty to protect the rights and dignity of their patients, some of the most vulnerable members of our society. Doctors are guided by a common framework of four principles:

Respect for autonomy: The patient has the right to refuse or choose their treatment.

The patient has the right to refuse or choose their treatment. Beneficence: A practitioner should act in the best interest of the patient.

A practitioner should act in the best interest of the patient. Non-maleficence: To not cause harm. Related to “utility,” to promote more good than harm.

To not cause harm. Related to “utility,” to promote more good than harm. Justice: Deciding with a sense of fairness and equality who gets what treatment when health resources are scarce.

On top of those, doctors are required to have:

Respect for persons: The patient, family, and practitioner (who may or may not be a doctor) all have the right to be treated with dignity.

The patient, family, and practitioner (who may or may not be a doctor) all have the right to be treated with dignity. Truthfulness and honesty: The concept of informed consent has increased in importance since events like the Nuremberg Trials and Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, where physicians deceived patients.

The time of “move fast and break things” is over

I can’t begin to understand why there’s no similar common ethical framework for designers. I think everyone can agree that the products we create have a major impact on society and our individual social identities, but there is very little open discussion of the implications of those products.

I believe it’s time for our industry to stop trying to fix the problems and start proactively working to not create problems in the first place.

The time of “move fast and break things” is over. Companies like Facebook don’t need legislative regulation; it may help, but regulation alone won’t fix the problems. Facebook needs moral guidance. In both hearings on Capitol Hill, Mark Zuckerberg reiterated that this was not what he had in mind when he created Facebook in his dorm room. I’m sure it wasn’t, but we still treat Facebook as a shining example of entrepreneurship and what can be achieved from your dorm room. Our industry needs to learn a lesson. Zuckerberg may have created the Facebook platform, but he didn’t create ALL the problems we’re now experiencing. We, the designers, did the rest. Someone had to create the third-party apps that stole our private data. We were failed by those who valued themselves over their users.

“The superior man understands what is right; the inferior man understands what will sell.” ― Confucius

A code of conduct for designers?

Instead of focusing on holding ourselves to higher ethical standards, we just come up with other names for bad behavior. We give it a cool name like “dark patterns,” accompany it with a picture of Darth Vader in front of a computer, and continue to engage in shady practices. How about we just call dark patterns what they truly are — bad design and bad ethics. Not to do so is dishonest and short-sighted.

While the GDPR may not be perfect (and again, I don’t think legislation alone will solve this), I think it’s an important first step. Let’s take a look back at the ethical requirements of doctors and try to make them fit designers. It’s surprising how easily the principles can be adapted:

Respect for autonomy: The user has the right to refuse or choose what content they are presented with. No one has the authority to bypass this without penalty. (This is what the GDPR aims to do.)

The user has the right to refuse or choose what content they are presented with. No one has the authority to bypass this without penalty. (This is what the GDPR aims to do.) Beneficence: The app/service should act in the best interest of the user. No more dark patterns. No more exploiting user data without consent.

The app/service should act in the best interest of the user. No more dark patterns. No more exploiting user data without consent. Non-maleficence and utility: To not intentionally cause harm to the user; to promote more good than harm. Essentially Google’s original “Don’t do evil” promise.

To not intentionally cause harm to the user; to promote more good than harm. Essentially Google’s original “Don’t do evil” promise. Justice: Balanced access to content and services. All users are equal and all content providers are equal. (Read: net neutrality).

At this particular moment in time, as voice-assisted user interfaces and artificial intelligence bring up entirely new scenarios, we have an excellent opportunity to reassess ethics in the industry and think about what kind of technology we want in our lives. For example, users need to have the choice to opt out of Alexa and Google Home listening in when they shouldn’t. If we all, as designers, agree to a set of ethical standards, situations like this wouldn’t even be an issue. We’d all ask ourselves, “Just because we can, does that mean we should?”