The Rhetoric of Influence: Models for User-Centered Collaboration

Uday Gajendar UI Design Group, Oracle Corp. 500 Oracle Parkway Redwood Shores, CA 94065 USA +1 650 506 3643 [email protected]

ABSTRACT UCD experts leverage their high-level view of a problem in The goal of this paper is to suggest rhetorical strategies for discussions with others from differing (yet complementary) influencing stakeholders in a user-centered collaborative disciplines? Perhaps we should consider a step beyond process. I propose rhetoric as a guide to framing UCD, towards the art of rhetoric. interdisciplinary dialogue, thus empowering designers as RHETORICAL MODELS agents for positive change. Two ideas from scholars of Rhetoric is commonly seen as sly doubletalk by politicians rhetoric are offered: the rhetorical stance and rhetorical and scheming salespeople. Beyond this negative meaning, situation. What emerges is the theme of communication rhetoric is in fact a Classical art originating 2,500 years informing successful design practice. ago, formalized by Aristotle in a treatise to become a Keywords practical discipline devoted to studying and performing Rhetoric, user-centered design, influence, persuasion persuasive public speech [4]. As a situated “art of communication”, rhetoric offers strategies to shape INTRODUCTION people’s actions and thoughts with language [4]. Two A colleague likes to tell me that design is the easy part, but scholars offer particular models that bear upon product the hard part is convincing the right people to implement development process— Wayne Booth with his “rhetorical the recommendations. I’d like to suggest that persuading stance” and Lloyd Bitzer with his “rhetorical situation”. key stakeholders of a product is in fact integral to the design process, but not adequately addressed by current Booth’s Rhetorical Stance popular methodology—whether at the flow, page, or icon Booth wonders why a specific message may not interpreted levels [3]. Design activity is commonly framed within the properly by the intended audience. He studies the structure collaborative user-centered design (UCD) process, of a communicative event from a rhetorical view, applicable to any problem, domain, or artifact as a general identifying three elements that should be in proper balance: strategy. The iterative cycling among conception, design, “the available arguments about the subject itself, the and evaluation ostensibly yields designs that meet selected interests and peculiarities of the audience, and the voice, or usability goals. However, UCD does not directly tackle implied character, of the speaker” [2]. This, in effect is the problems of intra-team influence and argument among “rhetorical stance” (Figure 1). competing priorities. Stakeholders of the Design A product team includes stakeholders with various goals and agendas, including business analysts, engineers, marketing gurus, customer representatives, and design /usability experts. Not to be forgotten is the user, of course! The design/usability group tries to mediate and interpret among the stakeholders (especially the user), but how do UCD professionals argue towards the “right” solution, keeping in mind a proper balance of priorities? How can

Copyright is held by the author/owner(s). CHI 2003, April 5–10, 2003, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, USA. ACM 1-58113-630-7/03/0004. Figure 1: Booth’s Rhetorical Stance.

In order to communicate effectively, a writer (or speaker) needs to find “a definition of the audience, the argument, and his/her own proper tone of voice.” [2] These are referred to as pathos, logos, and ethos, respectively, in Classical terms. The parallel to UCD activity is startling! This is akin to the arguments for design solutions, the skepticism of the development team or business group, and the tone of voice of the usability/design expert in her deliberations. Also critical is the expression of the design in the product itself and its messages to the user—what is the argument within the product as icons, widgets, or colors, asking the user to use its features? Booth names three common “corruptions” that disturb the proper balance: The advertiser stance of “undervaluing the subject and overvaluing pure effect”; the entertainer stance of “the willingness to sacrifice substance to personality and charm”; the pedant stance which “ignores the relationship of speaker and audience and depends entirely on technical statements about a subject” [2]. These are seen in product development as a solution that Figure 2: Bitzer’s Rhetorical Situation. embodies too much engineering complexity, or driven by marketing pitches, or features too much personal style Finally, Bitzer suggests the situation is the source and because the influence is pushed in only one direction. A ground of rhetorical “moments”, not the speaker and her designer’s stance emerges in having proper artifacts, such persuasive intent. However, many rhetorical situations as taskflows, page designs, and properly documented mature and decay without giving birth to dialogue [1]. So, usability activities, to show respect for audience the UCD expert must be aware of the project situation, and needs/wants. Meanwhile, she strives to identify issues each choose which battles to fight or delay for another time. It is team member owns and ways to accommodate them. This valuable to develop an awareness of the people, politics, should lead to a dialogue with agreed messages of common and technology that define each situation. value and shared understandings. CONCLUSION Bitzer’s Rhetorical Situation These rhetorical models offer different ways for a designer Bitzer examines the problem of effective communication to see how issues of effective communication to the proper by emphasizing the situation that triggers a rhetorical people can affect development of an optimal user-centric “moment”, or dialogue [1]. According to Bitzer, rhetorical solution. There is no simple formula, but these strategies moments occur to “produce action or change in the world” drawn upon Classical theories of human influence should [1]. Thus, it is the practical influence of messages that grow inform each situation to foster the proper balance of out of and must be understood as part of a situation—a messages. What emerges is the theme of communication in “complex dynamic, that can affect events, attitudes, and design practice, regarding the tools, artifacts, and target of relations” [1] (Figure 2). The situation has three parts: the message. exigence, or the problem that must be addressed; audience, REFERENCES or those who will be influenced by the message, and whose 1. Bitzer, Lloyd F. The Rhetorical Situation. Philosophy attitudes, needs, expectations, and knowledge shape the and Rhetoric, 1 (January, 1968), 1-14. message; and constraints, or limitations on what the speaker can say, which arise out of the settings or the 2. Booth, Wayne C. The Rhetorical Stance. Now Don’t speaker’s abilities and attitudes [1]. Try to Reason with Me. Chicago IL: University of Once again, the parallels to UCD activity are clear. Chicago Press, 1972. Exigence is the problem arising in the situation for debate 3. IBM’s User Centered Design (UCD) Site. Available at like a faulty feature or interface enhancements or changed www-3.ibm.com/ibm/easy/eou_ext.nsf/Publish/570. requirements. The audience may be the user, the business 4. MacLennan, Jennifer. The Nature of Rhetoric.Available team, or the developer team. And of course, the constraints at www.engr.usask.ca/dept/techcomm/whatis.htm. may be platform issues, user requirements, political pressures, developer timelines, and so forth.