[“Bell telephone magazine” (1922)](https://www.flickr.com/photos/internetarchivebookimages/14569835359/in/photolist-ocudrV-ZwGZhf-fnCspu-Zd9yCw-Zd9yFh-RoFEMH-Zd9yEW-2dndzYd-VVnh1Z-23G6Wha-otoCp2-Vh6WN7-29NFy1w-xZ2b1S-t9Di56-fVNUek-YbGbtm-e5iRhT-2c12diZ-wf3YfM-4jz2uQ-VSxaif-oweZbf-bqg17W-WbPC4T-oeVeww-S3XRUx-di4Wme-hMpfJD-otKWHY-Wjv85j-bUyWGW-G18PN9-i6Ha3K-QWp5Gg-r9hBCW-oeXDVU-oydyX4-64VEva-ovcY4r-27n6Hft-bULydr-RRfRRE-oyeQrD-qbMU39-5xkxni-fpTLr3-oucHv4-bUBvH1-cvNDKW)

Ambiguity is an integral dimension to the creative work, often ignored by creatives and designers.

We fool ourselves to believe our perceived experience of our users, either by intuition or through interviewing the average user sample (in a limited ethnography context)

We sell our deliverables against that promise of an outcome, and run out of the door before the verdict comes.

In contrast, the world of finance is constantly bothered with what could happen, because a finance consultant is paid in the future for service rendered now. We could take something from line of thinking. How can we work with users’ internal inertia, instead of nudging them into a funnel? Because whatever it is that we’re designing them to do now, needs to be negotiated with their own experience.

Can we add time as a dimension of our work?

I am not trying to diminish the wonderful role design plays in improving lives, and solving large scale problems. What I do want us to consider is the fact that in an ideal (designed) world the future follows the trajectory of the past. That is not out reality. A deeper understanding of the mess (complexity) which is the human condition, and the humbling sense that comes from appreciating the randomness of our future could help us do more good, in the long run.