Month: February 2011

Just some add’l thoughts spinning off of the last day of the conference, excluding the afternoon sessions and closing keynote which I had to miss due to my flight–sorry!

* The “neuroscience of usability” was much more about the brain science of patterns which was wonderful to hear after a couple days of somewhat “pattern-bashing”. And I wonder why– apparently females are more tuned to patterns than males (per Brenda Laurel) haha! But the chemical reaction relation (ahem, dopamine) gives further validation to the positive value of patterns, providing familiarity at an almost sub-conscious level of engagement. Hmm!

* Loved @globalmoxie’s talk emphasizing the value of complexity–it’s actually necessary to live a rich and diverse life! He sussed out the issue of complicated vs complexity, per Don Norman. Entertaining and filled with vivid examples, a great talk.

* Per an essay @Trenti wrote awhile back, it’s OK to make people think! Helps enable mastery of a tool, gain pride/achievement, etc.

* Also very much enjoyed @adamconnor’s talk relating film-making technique to interaction design–again referencing the value of movie patterns (ahem) used in silent classics to modern hits to convey emotion.

* Annotating wireframes and flows with the emotional states/values of users and systems–very cool! Helps get emotional empathy back into system diagrams. Adds that humanizing element…

* Movies, storyboards, scenes, direction, choreography: all have direct bearing upon designing interfaces and interactions. We can learn TONS from studying movies.

* I’d like to propose film-making or drama as a mandatory class for designers.

* The WinMo7 case study by MSFT was great. Loved the theme of “personal connected relevant” as a driver for a radically different UI and experience. Felt authentic, not just “cooked up” for marketing.

* Healthcare UI is a vital and deadly serious issue we should all be concerned about. Indeed, we rarely discuss “death” but it’s a profound matter. No kidding!

* Clarity, functionality, and yes even aesthetic charm/beauty/character have a place in healthcare design. It’s about humanity! (dignity, per Buchanan)

* Gamification of apps…hmm! Interesting ideas. Not just gimmicky badges and points but really about tapping internal motivations with extrinsic bennies. Basic behavioral economics, i think? Good stuff!

* Brenda Laurel keynote: nice historical survey of IxD, with compelling calls to action (especially for female entrepreneurs–we need more!! ) ending with a touching moment speaking to our collective humanity and planetary consciousness. Inspirational for many.

 

I’ll post a more thorough review of various talks and presos, but just wanted to quickly jot down some of the key thoughts bubbling in my mind the last few days at this wonderfully organized and richly developed event, truly a premier event for anyone involved in designing interactions for products/services.

Quick thoughts…

* Bill Verplank is a legendary force of knowledge and ideas. Yes, he comes from the Stanford systems thinking POV, highly materialist / reductivist / entitative but that doesn’t diminish the strength of his ideas and their portrayal: as conte drawings done live in front of the audience. No powerpoint! Pure storytelling.

* What’s the material of (interaction) design: behavior (and experience) IMHO. That’s what gets manipulated towards affecting people’s attitudes and actions, influencing their intentionality along different directions.

* Digging deeper… human purpose and values/principles are the fundamental material of design, per Buchanan’s keynote. They are what’s shaped via the agency of design intent and deliberation / interpretation / judgment of stakeholders (including users / designers / biz etc.)

* Your interface is your brand. Period. As artfully explained by Nick Myers of Cooper, a great guy and designer, elements of visual aesthetics and compositional structures shape the brand perception, influencing the interaction potential.

* Interaction has rhythm and can enable autotelic flow. Mastering how and when to appropriately do that is a powerful ability. Wondering how patterns and rhythms fit together? Do they?

* Beautiful information visualizations enrich the experience of data. However, the affordances for interaction are not necessarily apparent. May lead to confusion or serendipitous discovery. Tricky balance…

* Ethics and human values (of dignity) are critical to designing but only you as the designer can decide for yourself what’s right. How you collectively engage (and persuade) with teammates/clients/stakeholders is a bigger issue.

* Integrity matters. Human dignity is the endgame.

* If you’re not making, you’re not designing.

* Sketching/drawing are supreme skills of any designer.

* Those who think that there’s some “landgrab” for interaction designers to “do everything” have it wrong. It’s not about landgrab. It’s about applying “interaction” as a perspective, principle, and method towards solving increasingly complex problems from various viewpoints.

* Oh, and yes designers should assert a point of view. Design is NOT neutral at all. Every design embodies a set of values and beliefs about life, people, environment, utility, etc. framed by the attitudes of the designers and stakeholders. It’s the designer’s dire and grim responsibility to assert a positive, humane, sensible POV in shaping products.

* What’s a product? Who the hell knows ;-)

 

 

 

No, I’m not referring to a police record :-) Of course, I mean designing with a set of core principles that define your philosophy, approach, and vision as a designer. What do you believe in? What do you fight for and what will you simply not compromise on when the temperature rises during cross-dusciplinary debates? What are your convictions that you personally uphold and defend, in any job or client situation? According a recent post by Dan Saffer of Kicker Studio, one of the qualities that make a great designer is uncompromising on process, which I take to mean your approach, methods, and beliefs.

When in debates with engineers and PMs over features and edge cases, how do you know what to fight back on, versus humbly acknowledging the changes? What ground do you stand upon? A set of bureaucratic and un-updated UI guidelines? What your VP declares? Ultimately, how do you deal with the ambiguity of what makes a “good” or “right” design?

Citrix CEO Mark Templeton said recently at a our annual Design Summit, “Designers should have an opinion at the table and stand up for it. Defend it. Coach us on how to design the product properly.” Hmm! Clearly an opening and desire to have designers fight for what is appropriate and necessary, not simply do what is merely convenient.

In a recent candid interview with former Apple CEO John Sculley, the interviewer captured Steve Jobs’ “methodology” which involves a set of core principles that define, unilaterally and strongly, the “Design Way at Apple”:

* Start with the user’s experience 
* Focus on just a few things
* Look at the whole system
* Never compromise
* Benchmark yourself against artisans, not commodities

A nice set! What are my convictions? Here’s a short list:

– Vision drives strategy, not a project plan.
– Users don’t have the answers. Designers must smartly envision.
– There is no perfect design, yet strive for excellence.
– Focus on humanist values first, then technical features.
– Consider the silhouette and details of the product / service experience.
– Aesthetics matter. Period.

Convictions set you apart from the crowd, builds respect, and commands attention among those used to polite acquiescence in middle-managed contexts. Convictions about what and how to design (given your outlook and posture) defines your authority as a leader creating great products. Otherwise, you risk the danger of being used badly to slap on lipstick or not taken seriously for your ideas and potential. Designing with conviction, obviously, takes courage and passion and commitment. And…a strong dose of “belief” in doing the right thing per your evolved sense of judgment and expertise. To design is to believe and to believe is to see with uncompromising clarity. It all comes back to your purpose for why you design.

Recently we’ve been having an internal debate about what it means to “design for delight” — one of the core Citrix design principles being propagated via posters, executive talks, etc. Is delight  the fact that the damn thing just works?(a baseline minimal expectation IMHO that every product should achieve) Or some splashy sparkly pizazz that (over) stimulates the senses? Or something else…? And do these expectations of what is delightful evolve over time as the delight becomes the norm? How does the product adapt accordingly…

In addition, we have a design principle extolling the value of craftsmanship in everything we do, with focused attention upon the tiniest details of a high-quality software product, much like a Stradivarius violin… or the Apple iPhone 4, which itself embodies the solidity and craft of a Braun design, and the values of Dieter Rams with elegance and simplicity of form. Here craft includes the engineering, manufacturing, and software design integratively.

Taken together, I think it’s really about “crafting delight” towards a cohesive, aesthetic engagement that resonates with a person’s goals and values–and exceeds expectations. Also note the “person” should be perceived as “intelligent, yet impatient”, which I’ve heard is the mantra about users popularized at Apple. This means the person, while very busy, still values the little flourishes that accentuate and improve achieving her goal. She is not a simple machine that needs to be spoon-fed rote explicit instructions in brute force style. What matters then, are the visual and behavioral touches that signify care, thoughtfulness, and a desire to enhance the interaction for everyday convenience and pleasant usage. It’s about subtle poetics, not vibrant spectacle. Not the big splashy thing, which may be fun for the initial encounter to spark up the tone. But for daily utility amid the tedium of work at the office, and so forth. What are those little surprises that make the user say “That’s nice”, “Thank you”, and “Of course”? Instead of slow painful death by a thousand cuts it’s for long-term satisfaction (and brand loyalty!) by a thousand little delights that take the user beyond the functional baseline.

This site features a nice catalog of tiny touches in software interfaces that make things just a bit more convenient, communicative, useful, and just plain delightful to use: http://littlebigdetails.com/

And in terms of crafting interaction design, which is to say behavior, this site has a a couple very detailed stories of how behavior can be artfully designed to help a user be productive, efficient, and happy: http://www.theinvisibl.com/

Thinking about what exactly happens at which period in time and at what state and defining the rules around that is what I’ve often called “nuts-and-bolts” interaction design. Sounds very tedious, yet it’s quite critical. Coupled with exquisite visual design, this is really what makes a product become much more than a mere tool but a valued companion incorporated into a person’s lifestyle and workstyle, the daily habits of activity.