The Big Idea

Your relationship to the people you design for isn't one thing.

Drawing on Fila et al. (2014) and Hynes & Swenson (2013), this framework splits "who is this for" into three distinct relational stances. You can design for a group you're not part of, with people as active collaborators, or as a way of designing from your own lived experience and values. Most real projects mix all three — naming which one you're in at any moment keeps you honest about what you actually know versus what you're assuming.

The Three Lenses

For, With, As.

Each stance carries a different obligation — and a different way you can go wrong.

01

For

Designing for people whose experience you don't share — a different age group, ability, background, or role than your own. The obligation is humility: don't assume you already know what they need.

What would I need to ask, not assume, about this person's experience?
02

With

Designing alongside people as active collaborators — teammates, co-designers, stakeholders with their own expertise. The obligation is shared authorship, not just consultation.

Whose expertise am I drawing on here, and are they actually shaping the decision?
03

As

Designing from your own identity, values, and lived experience — when you are, in some real sense, the person you're designing for. The obligation is honesty about what's personal versus universal.

What am I bringing from my own experience, and does it actually generalize?
Worked Example

Mapped onto the Purple Squirrel.

The clearest example built so far in the course — how the three lenses land on one real project. Images to come for each.

Image coming
For
For

An audience unfamiliar with MDE — the squirrel has to make sense and feel welcoming to someone who's never heard of the program.

Image coming
With
With

Teammates from across concentrations, each bringing different skills to the same build — the squirrel only comes together as shared work.

Image coming
As
As

Your own personal values and taste — the squirrel is also a class-identity object, so part of it is designed from what you personally want it to say.

In the Course

Where this shows up in IDE 495.

Day 1
First introduced alongside Norman's Three Levels and Compassionate Design as one of the three lenses used all semester.
Day 5
Full deep-dive on For, With, and As, with a jigsaw assignment: each pair builds an analogous example for one lens and presents the following Tuesday. Ends with a light preview of Project 2, the Purple Squirrel.
Day 7
Jigsaw pitches, then the "Connecting the Dots" bridge — mapping For/With/As explicitly onto the Purple Squirrel, the worked example above, before moving into squirrel studio time.
Ongoing
Used as one of three evaluation lenses (alongside Norman and Compassionate Design) for project critiques through the rest of the semester, including the final project.
Self-Check

Applying it to your own work.

Three questions to ask about anything you're building, at any stage.

For

Who am I designing for that I'm not, and what am I still assuming about their experience instead of asking?

With

Who's actually shaping this decision alongside me, and are they a real collaborator or just someone I checked in with?

As

What part of this comes from my own experience or values — and am I being honest about where that stops applying to someone else?

Source

Fila et al., "Engineering For, With, or As People?" (2014); Hynes & Swenson (2013).