Architects, by and large, are tasked with a tremendous undertaking: to design a world for the masses. The ultimate driving factor of any project is people – to serve them, entertain them, and accommodate them. Shelter is one of our most essential needs as humans and so the architect must, by the nature of her work, understand the human, she must know her user. Architecture is the manifestation of what we believe we understand about the human condition. With such an essential factor of the creative process relying on one’s relation and empathy to people, it is sensible to investigate how that empathic process might unfold. What follows is a powerful example of a young pioneer who took extraordinary steps to literally transform herself into her user. As an industrial designer, she propelled herself into an experiment that would position her as one of the world’s foremost models of empathic brilliance, setting the stage for a new generation of creators and designers.
While still a young industrial designer, Patricia Moore found herself working in the office of Raymond Loewy, often considered The Father of Industrial Design. Set in New York City during the mid-1970s, Moore was eager to prove herself at her new job. Displaying her talent early on, she caught the attention of the higher-ups within the organization and soon began working on a number of new projects, building her skills and aptitude as a designer.
As she continued her journey, Moore began to realize that the designs the firm was developing were disproportionately focused on style rather than how functional they would be for the users. Observing further, Moore thought of her grandfather back home and wondered how he might use some of the products, many of them worked well for young and active adults, but not for people who might be older and less able-bodied. This became her obsession: how to create designs that served all types of people, particularly, the elderly.
Eventually, Moore decided that she needed to take action and wrote a memo to Loewy himself. “Give me time off from the job,” she said, “to think, to study, to learn more about individualizing the environment for people.” Moore decided that she was going to find out more about the aging process and how it related to the products that were being developed at Loewy’s firm. She had found her life’s calling.
After her appeal, the young designer was given the okay to become a student again and enrolled at New York University Medical School to study biomechanics. As part of her arrangement, she was encouraged to incorporate her findings in her projects at work, it was a dream scenario that allowed Moore to dive deep into her new passion. But, after some life-altering circumstances, she left Loewy’s office and joined David Ellies, a firm that specialized in designing aircraft interiors. This was a job that gave the eager learner the flexibility to go to school on a full-time basis. Moore continued her education at Columbia University, tackling two Master’s degrees in gerontology and counseling, disciplines that would further solidify her understanding of her users and raise her to unparalleled heights in her field. What began as a realization was now becoming her personal identification.
How would it feel to be eighty or eighty-five, I wondered? And how can I ever know, since part of being ‘old’ is the way other people respond to you.” - Patricia Moore
Constantly exploring ways that she could get deeper into the minds and lives of the elderly, Moore began to struggle with the fact that she would not truly know what it was like to be older until she herself had grown in age. At twenty-six years old she was far from life as a senior citizen. She was eager to truly understand what it felt like to live life as an older woman but was at a loss on how she could capture that. While contemplating this conundrum, the designer-turned-sociologist attended a friend’s party. There she met a makeup artist, named Barbara Kelly, who worked for NBC and specialized in prosthetics for actors who played older characters.
Soon Moore had an ingenious and crazy idea. She would disguise herself as a woman in her eighties, and Barbara would help her do it. She even went as far as to simulate the physical limitations that some older people experienced, wrapping her legs tightly in Ace bandages with support stockings over top to limit her movement, she wore gloves over her younger looking hands, introduced aspects to cause her to hunch over while she walked with a cane, and even filled her ears with wax to suppress her hearing. The young empath was fully committed to see life through the eyes of the elderly. But first, she had to see if the disguise even worked.
I couldn’t resist imagining how differently he might respond to me if I had boarded the plane as a fashionably dressed, unmarried career girl of twenty-six.” - Patricia Moore
The perfect opportunity for Moore to try out her new disguise was at a work conference. Filled with nerves beyond measure, she walked into the event and began to talk to some of her colleagues. She knew them well, but, to them, she was a complete stranger — the disguise was working! Next, it was time to try the disguise with people she didn’t know, this is where Moore really started to notice that people treated her differently when she was in character as opposed to when she was her normal mid-twenties self. Her first encounter was with a cab driver who immediately offered to help her with her bags. During their drive to the airport, the cabbie proceeded to shout very loudly at Moore. “It was clear that he was talking loudly for the simple reason that I was old,” Moore recalled in her autobiography.
She was getting a small taste of life as one of her users, this wasn’t such a bad idea after all. Moore kept up this experiment for about three more years, traveling to over 100 cities throughout the United States and Canada, and refining her disguise as time went on. She began to add to her “characters,” dressing as women of varying health and economic classes. She would later be robbed, left beaten and bleeding on a sidewalk in Harlem and experience the social dismissal many elderly have to deal with. Through this trial by fire, Moore was able to embody the lives of her subjects, she was determined to understand the viewpoint of the people she wanted to help in an extreme way, even if it meant being put in harm's way.
I began to see that there were more than just design issues at stake. In a sense, I started the project as a designer, and came to function more as a sociologist.” - Patricia Moore
Patricia Moore soon established herself as a formidable force in the design world. During her experiment she founded her own practice where she used her unique research to create products and services for consumers of all ages. Her work has spanned an astronomical number of different fields and she has worked with clients that any firm leader would dream of (AT&T, NASA, Boeing, and General Electric to name a few). Moore is a Fellow of the Industrial Designers Society of America and has been regarded as one of the most notable industrial designers in the entire history of the field. She is an educator, a practitioner, and a true revolutionary. To list all that this remarkable individual has accomplished would take a series of articles in itself. She started as an eager young professional and has grown into a grandmaster. She is truly an inspiration for designers around the world.
A look at the life of Patricia Moore provides an unprecedented look at the steps one can take to truly understand the end user. As an industrial designer, Moore embraces her duty to serve those she designs for. For her, understanding the elderly was an inescapable vitality. There was no other way that she could create something impactful for them without fully identifying with their perspectives, what they went through, how they felt, and even how they thought.
In the practice of architecture, there always lies an interpretation. The architect must decode what she believes to be true about her users. It’s something easier said than done. With a profession committed to the health, safety, and welfare of the individual and the public an invested interest in each user is an unavoidable necessity. Architecture consists of a group of people who have an unfathomable understanding of human nature. How can one take that understanding even deeper? The life Patricia Moore illustrates an extraordinary example, one that all creators and practitioners can hopefully learn from.
Sean Joyner is a writer and essayist based in Los Angeles. His work explores themes spanning architecture, culture, and everyday life. Sean's essays and articles have been featured in The Architect's Newspaper, ARCHITECT Magazine, Dwell Magazine, and Archinect. He also works as an ...
2 Featured Comments
This is a wonderful essay, if only to remind architects of who they are designing for. I would expand the idea to all people, that being the amorphous human nature and how little it's studied in schools. Students are asked to push the boundaries of concepts and technologies without ever asking the first thing about the psychology of the end users. One is tempted to say this is a form of malpractice, but of course it's not on purpose, it's how students are educated.
"empathic brilliance" is a brilliant idea. Reminds me of this great book, also by an industrial designer "The Design of Everyday Things" by Don Norman. It centers on the idea of Human Centered Design. We can of course all be split up into micro doses of humanity per our or societies demands, but like our DNA, the commonalities far out weigh the differences.
Keep'em coming!
i agree with beta. this article leaves me with the uneasy impression that somebody should be applauded for wearing black-face. Understanding other points of view is important. Living in someones shoes is maybe a way to get that knowledge, or maybe it just leaves a person with a farcical and self-serving certainty that is not actually earned and possibly 180 degrees incorrect. She did well and meant well so I guess this suspicion is not reasonable for me to have. But it lingers nonetheless. That this idea can be transferred to architecture is too easy said too hard done. On top of that products are easier to manage than buildings. Fewer factions, more certain users, more clear source of materials, inputs and outputs. Architecture is not like that. It just isnt. Miles' jaded commentary on how money rules the world is only a part of the problem. In which case, what lessons can we take from this biography of an interesting woman? Mostly I am left with a fun read.
All 5 Comments
This kind of training was integral to RISD's industrial design program but completely absent from their architecture program.
As far as "architects are tasked with designing a world for the masses", nice theory that ignores reality.
Miles, I can always count on you to leave a vague criticism. I'd love to hear your view on something closer to reality. Looking forward to it.
Maybe with some more life experience you 'll have a better understanding of reality. And maybe if you dropped the attitude we could have a nice discussion about it. You might consider asking a question if you don't understand something.
I'm happy to have a discussion. You came here and shared how detached from reality you feel I am without providing an alternative and I'm asking for your more experienced view.
The comment was not about you, it was about what you wrote. Big difference.
My first comment described human factors as part of the ID program but not part of architecture. The second comment extended that to challenge the idea that architects are responsible for "design a world for the masses". This is a logical contradiction when architects are not trained in human factors.
Simply put, the vast majority of architecture serves commerce, not "a world for the masses". You see this in all the design magazines featuring superlux projects, glorying wealth.
Most commercial projects are about ROI, not some idea of actually serving the masses. Most projects are designed with little thought to integration into the cultural fabric or the environment. This is reality. There are architects and designers working to do these things, but it is an uphill battle and always in the context of ROI. Economics rule.
In my experience that is reality.
Read Alexander Kira's "The Bathroom". It is a sharp critical analysis of the design toilet facilities written in 1976. See how much things have changed since then.
Miles, thank you sir. This is really good. I’ll definitely check out “The Bathroom.” I do find it unfortunate that architects are not trained in human factors, it seems like an obvious skill to have. The thinking behind “the masses” point was that humans spend the majority of their time in buildings and architects are (usually) involved in their creation, but the connection to the people they are supposed to be designing for is lacking.
I see what you mean on your point in ROI. It’s too bad that has to be the case. I fear I may be too naive to hope it was different. But like you said. Economics prevail. Thank you for the insight and the context.
You weren't being naive. Who says one isn't designing for the masses when having to satisfy someone's return on investment. People have done both since the beginning of time. The better architect one is, the more they give back to the community after satisfying the needs of their patron. What's naive is to assume one gets a blank check. Walk, chew gum, and check your i-phone.
what did she design, and how does it compare to the designs of say Michael Graves who in his later years was genuinely old and impaired?
midlander, this is an excellent question. As far as her specific designs, I had trouble finding exact projects in my research. I have a feeling she may function more as a consultant than a traditional designer given her research and background but I could by off on that. The primary focus I wanted to explore was the experiment she pursued and her ambition behind it. I'd probably say the main difference between her and Graves is that Moore embraced "universal" design very early and Graves ultimately did a lot later in his life. What do you think?
But nothing beats living the real thing, as Graves indeed did later in his life.
mid, this is my criticism of work like this; it's not about "a reality" it's about "a constructed reality" and one that is about a 1:1 experience through a guise of "x". It reminds me of when white people try to do this same kind of thing as other races, or when people don a "fat suit" to "experience" the other. At the end of the day, that costuming as the other only results in the person in the costume understanding an infinitesimal level of the other; a superficial one at best.
i agree, it's patronizing to think dressing up as a stereotypical form captures the essence of a group's experience. especially as with the elderly when that group is perfectly capable of articulating their needs. it seems like performance art as a way of attracting attention to a cause. i don't doubt she undertook it with good intentions, but i don't think this is a good model of empathetic design.
These are good points guys. b3tadine, I feel you on the “other races” bit. As a minority, I’ve experienced certain people attempting to “teach” me about my experience when they really didn’t get the deeper nuances of what I was going through. To midlanders point, their intentions were good but not so effective. What I personally like about Moore is the extra steps she took on her schooling and research, instead of just merely the disguise, and then theorizing from there. However, I wonder if such an experiment would be well received today as opposed to the mid 1960s. I don’t imagine so.
i agree with beta. this article leaves me with the uneasy impression that somebody should be applauded for wearing black-face. Understanding other points of view is important. Living in someones shoes is maybe a way to get that knowledge, or maybe it just leaves a person with a farcical and self-serving certainty that is not actually earned and possibly 180 degrees incorrect. She did well and meant well so I guess this suspicion is not reasonable for me to have. But it lingers nonetheless. That this idea can be transferred to architecture is too easy said too hard done. On top of that products are easier to manage than buildings. Fewer factions, more certain users, more clear source of materials, inputs and outputs. Architecture is not like that. It just isnt. Miles' jaded commentary on how money rules the world is only a part of the problem. In which case, what lessons can we take from this biography of an interesting woman? Mostly I am left with a fun read.
Trying to learn and understand by putting yourself in another's shoes is equivalent to wearing blackface? And you call yourselves designers? Pathetic.
This was required in sophomore ID studio. I spent a day in a wheelchair. You guys should try it sometime instead of spouting nonsense. Talk about jaded ...
there is a difference between trying to understand the mechanical limitations of a piece of equipment versus pretending to have an identity you don't. the latter is disingenuous and can easily be self-fooling. the former, yes, a basic part of good practice. but it misses the hard questions.
Miles, stop, you're way off base. You spent a "day" in a wheelchair, and now you're enlightened? That's not what empathy requires of us, it's not even a cursory understanding of what it means, and it's pretty damn close to fetishistic.
One of the few remaining "accepted" means of discrimination is fat shaming, and fat phobia, that is until WA added obesity to the protected class in their state.
One of the few remaining "accepted" means of discrimination is fat shaming, and fat phobia, that is until WA added obesity to the protected class in their state.
It doesn't surprise me that no one has acknowledged this fact, it's one that everyone sees as "preventable". The one thing lessons like these fail to acknowledge is that people are actually living with these experiences, they've learned all that needs to be learned from them, and one day doesn't begin to touch the real issues embedded with these disabilities.
Being an able-bodied person in a wheelchair for a day, doesn't even begin to touch anything but a superficial understanding of being bound to a wheelchair, and I've had that experience twice, for a week each time, and in those moments I never felt like I understood what it mean to be confined. You're still able to remove yourself, from the situation, get up when it gets to difficult, don't need to transfer to the water closet, navigate a Minnesota curb-cut in the winter, or empty your urine from a tube.
The most difficult thing to grasp, the one thing that a day in wheelchair, a day in blackface, or day in a fat-suit won't prepare you for is fear. Have you dealt with the debilitating fear of having to fly as someone who's morbid obese, or have to get seat belt extenders, feel the shame of others looks. Or, how about walking into a conference room filled with armed chairs as an obese person, do you think someone in a fat-suit will feel that? Better yet, and perhaps the most frightening, a doctors visit? Imagine visiting the doctor; shaming from the waiting room - chairs, to the check-in - scale, to the shaming from the doctor, who tells if you only try dieting, or the thing you're there for is weight caused?
What's never acknowledged is this; people living with these experiences as part of their everyday, have already figured out what you don't know, have figured out the shortcuts, the quickest routes, they can size up chairs before trying to sit in them, to fend off unsympathetic physicians, dodge scales, have had the "talk" with their sons, and know how to diffuse racist cops, and people.
It took more than a day, and we're better at it than you, so perhaps instead of your patronizing lip service, you actually spend the time engaging those around you, and stop playing dress-up.
Or, you spend a day, a day and you've magically become an empath.
Empathy doesn't come from wearing a suit for a day, being in a wheelchair for a day, or being black for a day, it comes from exercising that muscle between your ears.
Your points are valid. But there’s definitely a difference between putting on a blackface for a day and studying a group of people for your entire life. Moore uses the disguise because of her genuine desire to get deeper inside the life and mind of the elderly. Before that she practiced her empathic powers in her design job but was eager to increase her “cognitive” understanding to something more “emotional” and ”compassionate.”
Paul Ekman talks about this:
"in cognitive empathy we recognize what another person is feeling. In emotional empathy we actually feel what that person is feeling, and in compassionate empathy we want to help the other person deal with [their] situation and [their] emotions"
Moore wanted to do something about it but knew she was ill equipped because she didn’t know anything about their experience. She Yes she dressed up as an elderly person, but she also spent countless years talking to them, studying them, and devoting her life to understanding them.
She talks about her battles with the legitimacy and ethics of taking the approach she did, as any thinking person naturally would (obviously why we see the discussion here). But ultimately, for her at least, the experience she had traveling to over 100 cities for a period of over 3 years was worth the insight, as small as it may be, that would later aid her in her science and research. I think
this is far different from lip service or patronization.
I never claimed to be enlightened, although it was an eye-opening experience, even if only a tiny fraction of what the disabled face. My identity was assumed to be disabled because I was in the chair. Subterfuge requires intent to deceive. To equate this with anything other than what it was - an attempt to experience the obstacles facing people in wheelchairs - is absurd, political correctness taken to a ridiculous extreme in the name of morality while ignoring the very purpose of the act - to learn how to better address the problems facing the disabled. And you are trying to shame me for this? pffft
Nice try. Like I said, One. Day.
Trying to understand the problems of a particular group in order to design solutions to their difficulties is not empathetic? #brilliantlogic
Gee. I guess actually talking to a particular group is real challenge these days. #onedaydoesnotmakeyouempathetic
what beta says is exactly the issue. until you live the life for real it is all just guessing. The attempt to comprehend is worth noting, but this fear thing is real. Until you know fear for real, and cant escape the situation simply by choosing to stop pretending, then its hard to accept that the lessons are 100% cool. Maybe in industrial design it doesnt matter, but I cant help but wonder. For what it is worth Miles, we did the wheelchair thing at our school too. It was an experience worth having certainly, but it also turned me on very directly to the inherent problem that Beta brings up. It isnt real and the first person we should be talking to about reality is the person living it. Otherwise its kinda just a form of cosplay ennit?
At what point did anyone dismiss talking to people about their needs? All you have done is belittle and dismiss one method of learning about disabilities. Nobody said it was the only one or a substitute for others. Sean has unearthed and introduced us to an historical person whose work is highly pertinent to human factors and design for accessibility. She was doing this before you were born, was an IDSA Fellow, and all you do is shit on the idea. "Cosplay"? Your political correctness is a poor excuse for arrogant stupidity.
You're inability to acknowledge the falibility of this technique is infantile.
And exactly where did I deny that? The abled will always be disabled when designing for accessibility. That doesn't mean you don't try everything you can to understand the problems you are trying to address. Stop acting like Moore is Mickey Rooney in blackface. Your disdain cripples your cognitive ability.
Let's get this correct, the cognitive dissonance lies firmly, and unapologetically in your court. I've already given you ample personal, life experience to disprove this technique, and you've not acknowledged that my lived experience has more value than your one day.
On one hand the technique is useless, but on the other your two weeks in a wheelchair is not? Stop being sanctimonious and make up your mind. Where exactly did I belittle your experience? A quote would be good. Try reading what I wrote instead of imagining nonsense. That is the real demonstration of cognitive dissonance.
Have a nice day.
Again, your failure to read what I wrote, you know, it's kinda the same thing I deal with when I'm dealing with shitty contractors. Your nonsense is indicative of most of your bloviating half assedness. If you really think that my two weeks is what I was referring to, then that thing you call a brain, is fucking as useless as the LI Psychic.
Miles, where did you get the 2 weeks as being the point? This is why that day in the wheelchair is a problem. It makes people think they know something, and they stop paying attention to things in front of them, like the actual content of a heartfelt comment. The method has some validity but is problematic in a deep way. Not trying to knock it entirely, just pointing out it might not be the best way to learn something true, and comes with some serious risks . It might have a useful carryover to architecture but I find it hard to see it at the moment. This is not to knock the author either.
Mr. Personality's issue, not mine. There is apparently some serious reading disability here. Maybe you should read my comments again. Your comments about blackface and cosplay are particularly inappropriate.
This is a wonderful essay, if only to remind architects of who they are designing for. I would expand the idea to all people, that being the amorphous human nature and how little it's studied in schools. Students are asked to push the boundaries of concepts and technologies without ever asking the first thing about the psychology of the end users. One is tempted to say this is a form of malpractice, but of course it's not on purpose, it's how students are educated.
"empathic brilliance" is a brilliant idea. Reminds me of this great book, also by an industrial designer "The Design of Everyday Things" by Don Norman. It centers on the idea of Human Centered Design. We can of course all be split up into micro doses of humanity per our or societies demands, but like our DNA, the commonalities far out weigh the differences.
Keep'em coming!
Thanks for the comment! I read The Design of Everyday Things so long ago. I need to revisit it!
There's something uniquely spirited and special about an RIT education (still) . I studied interior design there ages ago.... about 10 years before Patricia arrived. and later architecture at the University of Illinois that was universally accessible. So it was part of our learning experience just being on campus. Tx for discovering us about Patricia Moore. Here's some more info: https://www.rit.edu/alumni/ihf...
Moore is in her 60's now right? So if we just wait a while we can ask her directly how being elderly compares to her experience pretending.
Exactly.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?