My gym is undergoing renovations—they took over the lower level and moved the front desk downstairs, and added a staircase that runs up through the middle of the upper level. The strange thing is that to get to the locker rooms, you have to walk upstairs and then across some open gym area where people are working out, and it’s a bit strange to imagine people walking across in their winter coats when you’re doing squats in your workout clothes.

Then I had a reflection—if I came into this gym once all the renovations were done, I would probably comment (at least in my head, likely out loud too), how badly designed the space was. Why did they put the locker rooms far away and force people to walk awkwardly through?? But having seen all of the steps of the renovation, I understand why the stairs had to be placed there, and the locker rooms (with bathrooms and showers) couldn’t be moved.

We often judge a design based on the result, whether it’s a product we use, the design of a physical space, or a video game. We don’t see the countless small decisions and constraints that led to the design being the way it is, and that change of perspective is a very interesting one which leads to more conscious criticism of design as well as more kindness to the design (and therefore likely the designer).

And of course, to zoom out and make this about life and not just about design, we can notice that we do this with people all the time. People’s behaviours (and traits) are informed by countless constraints that we don’t see or know, and could not possibly know. This is classic fundamental attribution error, but I find this design example to be a nice reminder to be a little bit kinder and more understanding of things or people that we may be too quick to criticize.