Sleek and Shiny vs. Steam

I was reading this article by Rachel Hinman of Adaptive Path and was intrigued by their efforts to make a mobile device that would do well in less tech savvy markets such as rural India. Hinman noted that the sleek, streamlined design of devices such as the iPhone deter exploration and tangible interaction. She goes on to say that her design team turned to the style of Steampunk. “It’s an aesthetic that invites the touch of the human hand and it encourages engagement and fosters curiosity and play.”

I love the aesthetic of steampunk for it’s whimsy and nostalgia, but I realized that there’s another reason. It’s exactly as Hinman describes- it makes me want to explore and tinker with the item. It’s a very visceral aesthetic, which we lack in the digital age. More and more there’s what I would call the Apple Aesthetic, which is one button- if you’re lucky. You have to rely on the gizmo’s internal screen to lead you around by the nose- you can’t just hit a button and have it do what you want (I should note here that I am, at heart, a curmudgeon).

To me it feels flimsy and almost unreal. And if the devices internal computer seizes up, you’re out of luck. With that in mind, Adaptive Path’s idea of adding tangible interactions would, to some degree, be welcome in tech-savvy markets. While the typical American wouldn’t want all the buttons and gauges they’ve included, I would think something with a bit of “real” interaction would be welcome. Though we all oohed and aahed when the iPhone first came out, I mourn the loss of a few buttons to mash when I need something quick. Not to mention the tactile benefit of feeling buttons when you’re trying to call someone and drive at the same time…

My grumbles might fall on deaf ears as I’m taken into the sleek and shiny future, but I don’t think I’m alone in saying I would like the best of both worlds. If technology is capable of anything, then it can certainly give me a few buttons.

Tufte and the Super Graphic

On monday I was lucky enough to attend Edward Tufte’s seminar “Presenting Data and Information.” Known as the ‘da Vinci of data’, he has a wealth of advice on preparing information to ensure maximum readability as well as how to communicate efficiently in a presentation.

The idea that I really loved was what he called the ‘Super Graphic.’ It’s a large, easy to read visual display that includes many factors in order to drive home your point. One such example can be found in his book ‘Beautiful Evidence.’ In it there is a map created by Charles Joseph Minard which displays the French army’s losses in the Russian Campaign. Minard conveys several factors in a very concise, visual manner: the amount of men over time, the dates in which the campaign took place, the army’s path to moscow, the falling temperatures, and where the greatest losses were incurred.

Tufte said that when you start a presentation by handing someone a super graphic, it allows them to process the information from their own point of view and peak their interest. In order to support your presentation well with a super graphic it should show comparisons, contrasts, and causality. Not only that, but because you’re showing something with many dimensions, you should convey more than two or three variables because a real world problem is multivariant.

Tufte’s books are full of historical documents that convey information in a variety of ways, and I love what it implies: that we need to get back to basics. That we need to set aside the powerpoint, stop worrying about fancy technological ways to convey information, and just sit down with a pencil and draw out what we want to say. Focus needs to be on analyzing the problem, solidifying the explanation, and proposing a solution rather than worrying over how our graphs created in Illustrator look. As always, it’s not about the medium-  it’s about the subject matter.

After discussing this with a friend, she told me that she had once taken the time to print out a report for the big cheese at her company and placed it on his desk. Later, he came back to her and said that he was so impressed that she had taken the extra effort to deliver it in person rather than through email. He had been able to take the repor ton a business trip, analyze it for himself, and come back to her with questions.

I’m all for saving paper, but I really do believe that creating a tactile presentation that someone can hold and take home for later makes a major difference in its ability to impact them, even if it’s only a simple report. Let’s get back to basics, intrigue our audience with our findings, and give them something to hold on to and remember.

Uncomplicated

More and more I’ve been checking out Cooper’s blog. It’s all very brilliant, but I especially love how they break design theory down into bite size chunks. They create an ongoing dialogue about design theory for those of us who want to learn more, but don’t necessarily have the time to sit at a coffee shop and contemplate dense design discourse.

My recent favorite is a simple explanation of personas by Chris Noessel. It combines two of my favorite things: the Simpsons and straightforward communication of ideas (is that too specific to be one of my favorite things?). Beyond giving me a great way to talk to clients/co-workers about proper use of personas, Noessel highlights how important it is to find a common language with those you work with. Too often we become wrapped up in our own little corner of the world with our special vocabulary, and we forget that people may not be familiar with all of the concepts and techniques that we cite. We have to find strong examples and illustrations of our ideas in order to get our point across, lest we find ourselves looking across the table to find an assortment of blank faces, glazed-over eyes and, in extreme cases, drool.

Beyond boardroom embarrassment, it’s a shame when good ideas and simple solutions are thrown to the wayside because people can’t understand what in the world you’re talking about. And we certainly shouldn’t look at finding ways to clearly explain our ideas as a chore or as ‘dumbing it down’ for the masses. It’s our job as designers to be clear communicators- whether verbally or visually. Indi Young in her book Mental Models notes that we design types tend to flaunt the scholarly language. She suggests keeping an eye on this and returning such vague phrases as ‘Implement written culinary method’ to colloquial language, which would go something along the lines of ‘follow the directions on the back of the macaroni box.”

Design, much like life, does not have to be complicated.

Activity Theory, Goal-Directed Design, and you

There are several issues that are arising in my work projects, so I’m going to try to talk about the theories that are swirling around in the research world in order to puzzle out my own design dilemmas…

Lately I’ve been doing a little research on the best practice for researching and creating GUIs for software. One such method is goal driven design. It’s discussed in-depth by Alan Cooper in About Face, and is design based upon what goal the user is trying to achieve. Writing a script, finishing his tax return, creating a digital work of art; these are all goals that a user might desire to accomplish and use software to achieve. To Cooper, goals are a collection of activities, and activities are transient and change with time. Goals are forever. For example, it may be your goal to go to Montana. In the old days, that meant climbing in the wagon with the family for an arduous trip that may or may not include cholera and scalping. In modern times, getting to Montana might simply mean getting on a plane after being harassed by airport security. But the goal of heading to the hills of Montana- oh, that remains the same. The techniques employed by GDD include interviews, personas, user stories, and other methods to get to know the user in-depth. It is a process that is very user-centric, and strives to create exactly what that user wants.

On the other hand, there’s Activity Centered Design, which is based on Activity Theory. The cited article explains the theory, though I think it has some double speak that makes the theory more difficult to understand than it should be. Basically, an activity is a motivation which is composed of actions. Actions are guided by the activity, and that action is a culmination of operations. For example, if one wanted to build a house (activity), they would need to transport building materials to the work site (action). In order to complete that action, one would start by loading the truck (operation). Similiar to the scientific method, this process is an unconscious one. But, it is the basis for the previously mention Activity Centered Design (ACD).

Perhaps the happy medium between the two can be found in Designing for the Social Web by Joshua Porter. In it, he suggests focusing on the primary activity and asking ” what are people using your software doing?” I like this question a lot because it has the implied question of who the people are, without getting too entrenched in the details of personas.

Porter goes on to say that the focus should be on the primary activity the user is trying to finish, because while knowing your user is important, you should really hone in on the specific activity you’re supporting with your design. Ultimately, activities reveal the steps involved in people reaching their goals.

The underlying goal of all this theory and practice is to keep in mind the overall desire of the user without getting caught up in the small minutiae of technology. Because, in the end, the use of technology is merely a pragmatic exercise for the user- it is only the means to an end, and rarely do they marvel at its awesome UI. They only want to know what it can do for them, and how easily they can accomplish their goal with this software.

Adding to that, I think it’s important to keep in mind this note from Designing the Obvious by Robert Hoekman, jr.

“When you start imagining how a fictitious character would respond to a hypothetical situation using an imaginary interface, it’s probably time to put down your little plastic army men and crack open the sketchbook.”

Theory, and a process, are wonderful things to help you along. But at the end of the day you’re a user experience designer, not a novelist.

hamster wheel

Well, the flash site is done. I have a feeling that the other two sites that I’ve worked on may never get done due to numerous revisions/additions from the clients. But I’ll sure let you know! The flash site was kind of a let down, because though the design was good (handed down to me from someone else), they obviously didn’t test it for a 1024×768 screen. Honestly, I’m not sure what screen they designed it for, because it’s just wide enough for a 1024, but too tall for it.  Who knows. As with most of my projects of late, I just make sure the site is built and that it works. But here’s the link!

On the horizon is an eLearning course and an art website for a woman who does some awesome collages. I’ve got the concept mapped out, and am currently looking for the right graphics to fit into my idea. She says there’s no rush and the tentative deadline is July, and it just might be that long before I get it set up due to the personal goal of moving to a new habitat and not living out of boxes for a month. Plus I have to set up that big hamster wheel. Helps me think.

As I’ve been a bit lazy about posting, I’ll put up some screenshots of the mockups once I get that going. Also, I bought the book Hot Text: Web Writing that Works. I know- sounds pretty cheesy, but it comes highly recommended, so I thought I’d check it out for writing more concise web content. But don’t you worry- it won’t cut into my ramblings on this blog… that would be a travesty.

Lightbox

I figured out how to implement Lightbox today, which is quite a neat little tool if used properly. As the saying goes, just because you can use it doesn’t mean you should. I think it’s perfect for videos or for showing off a couple of pictures, but it’s no way to showcase a gallery unless you have all the pictures interconnected through a link within the Lightbox. There’s nothing worse than having to click to see something, close the dialog box, and click again. That’s one of the first things that’s going to be gutted out of my portfolio for convenience’s sake.

One thing that didn’t occur to me on this video project was, oh hey, accessibility. I use alt text for the benefit of the impaired as well as search engines for images, but there’s so much more I need to learn in this particular area. I’ll let you know when we have some subtitle system figured out. One of my goals is to read Maximum Accessibility by John Slatin.

I’m trying to think up some clever new uses for it (because I’d love to use something nifty like this on my portfolio). It’s pretty simple to use as the developer lays out the code pretty plainly. A modification that goes beyond images can be found here.

Very cool. Just goes to show you that by fiddling with a some code, you can make some amazing things.