Our responsibility is not to pander.

I came across a study on eye movement while users browse web pages, titled "With a Focus on the Cognitive Styles of Chinese, Koreans and Americans". The highlight of this report is that it studied the eye-tracking data of online users from China, South Korea, and the United States. The result successfully demonstrated significant differences in browsing habits between Asian and American users. The report appears to be quite convincing, supported by a large number of charts and data. The two researchers are Ying Dong from China and Kun-Pyo Lee from South Korea. Their backgrounds are mentioned in the report, so I won't waste time introducing them one by one.

Now, is this so-called eye-tracking report on browsing habits among Chinese, Korean, and American users reliable? Of course not. It's evident from their conclusions. In order to prove that there are differences in browsing habits between Asians and Americans, they conducted research with this as their guiding principle, inevitably finding numerous differences in data. If you know a bit about law, you'd definitely understand the term "presumption of guilt." This presumption has led to countless wrongful convictions. We don't even need to talk about users from China, Korea, and the U.S.; just find three random people, and their web browsing habits will vary greatly. There's no point in studying three countries for that matter.

After their research and argumentation, the crucial part emerges: selling their design recommendations. The gist is that Asian users and American users should be treated differently to cater to the habits of internet users from different countries. I don't see the significance of such self-assured advice. Can we really accommodate the habits of over a billion internet users worldwide? You might think my statement is overly sophistical, but then I must ask: how should we distinguish and cater to humanity next? Dong and Lee have taken a bold step in this direction, but I prefer to interpret their research motives more cynically. Could it be that South Korean designers have noticed that their designs haven't been trendy in China over the past few years? Alas, we're not afraid of thugs blocking the road; we're afraid when thugs know martial arts. The Chinese version of this research report is all over the web. As for how many people believe it, that's none of my business.

I've always been aware of my relatively arrogant side, which might be why I'm not too fond of the approach of "catering." But I must remind everyone that user habits should not be catered to. If you know about Fiji's Sujit Kumar, China's Wang Xianfeng, and India's wolf children sisters, you might better understand the meaning of the word "habit." Habits formed in an inherently abnormal or incorrect environment—should we still cater to them today? For a designer who wants to make a mark, his responsibility absolutely isn't to cater, and if it is, it should be to commonalities rather than distinctions.