Design Thinking Books (2024)

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Reactions to the curated design book lists

  • The linked article and a user’s “digital library” drew mixed reactions.
  • Some praised the collections as useful and well-curated; others criticized them as flat lists of popular, minimalism-heavy titles lacking structure.
  • Suggestions included adding hierarchy by audience (beginner designers, devs with/without design support, managers) and grouping by topic.
  • Several noted missing “classics” in visual/UI design and industrial/minimalist design and were pleased when some were added.

Specific book recommendations and critiques

  • Widely recommended:
    • “Don’t Make Me Think” seen as a web-design counterpart to “The Design of Everyday Things” (DOET).
    • “Positioning” and “Ogilvy on Advertising” praised for shaping strategic and visual decisions.
    • “Creative Confidence,” “The Design of Design,” “101 Things I Learned in Architecture School,” “The Art of Game Design,” “The Toyota Way,” and a graphic-design-focused “New Program” were also endorsed.
  • DOET:
    • Supporters value its concepts (affordances, signifiers, mental models, error types, Norman doors) and say it permanently changed how they notice and discuss design.
    • Detractors find it academic, repetitive, overly obvious, or poorly structured; “good Design 101,” not a “bible.” Some specific technical claims (e.g., about passwords) are viewed as dated or wrong.
  • Refactoring UI:
    • Praised as highly actionable for developers.
    • Criticized for high price, lack of print edition, and some example “improvements” that look worse or harm accessibility (low-contrast, thin text).

Debate over Design Thinking vs. Systems Thinking

  • One strong thread argues:
    • Design Thinking is a simplified, branded subset of Systems Thinking/Cybernetics that imposes fixed stages and “recipes,” undermining the original epistemic, holistic intent of systems theory.
    • People are urged to study Systems Thinking directly (Ackoff, cybernetics, systems dynamics) rather than rely on canned frameworks.
  • Others respond:
    • Design Thinking is essentially standard human-centered design framed for non-designers; useful because it’s teachable, pragmatic, and pulls clients/stakeholders into problem framing.
    • It’s not inherently “one size fits all,” and in practice good teams adapt methods and use it as a tool, not dogma.
    • The tension is framed as methodology (flexible approach) vs. fixed method (5 stages), and whether codification helps or harms.

Skepticism toward Design Thinking practice and consulting

  • Multiple commenters see Design Thinking as a buzzword akin to Agile or Data Science fads:
    • Used to gain influence in domains where practitioners lack deep expertise.
    • Often manifests as ritualized workshops (sticky notes, dot-voting) where “design thinkers” control process and domain experts are just participants.
    • One anecdote describes a corporate “design thinking” class where consultants appeared to mine participants’ ideas for their own future monetization.
  • Counterpoints:
    • Domain experts are busy and siloed; designers add value by facilitating, prototyping, user testing, and connecting human behavior to solutions.
    • The real problem is poor practitioners and cargo-cult methods, not the underlying ideas of user-centered, iterative problem-solving.

Broader UX and design insights from the thread

  • Several comments expand on DOET-inspired ideas:
    • Norman doors demonstrate that users are not to blame for confusing interfaces; designers must observe behavior and reduce reliance on instructions/documentation.
    • “Just make it a setting” is critiqued: defaults matter since most users never change them, and excessive configuration creates decision fatigue and unusable settings menus.
    • Good design bridges human behavior and artifacts; environment and interface choices shape behavior far more than willpower or documentation.