The Young Grasshopper Reflects

Inspired by this blog entitled 101 Things I learned in interaction design school, I wanted to take a moment to document a few of the things I’ve learned from the school of hard knocks, i.e. being tossed in the pit of software development. I was very lucky to work with a dynamic team, and these are just some of the thoughts I came out with. Naturally, reading awesome blogs like Smashing Magazine and A List Apart definitely helped.

And lo! I give unto you a few of the things I learned while in conference rooms, standing before a whiteboard, and while hiding behind a sketch pad.

1. Open minds and active listening are key to success.
2. Always ask, ‘Why?’ How is this feature providing benefit to the user?
3. Mapping out purpose will provide the pathway to functionality, design and flow of the product.
4. Developers and designers come from two different viewpoints and have so much to share with each other, so always respect each other’s role in the process.
5. Clearly define scope of a product from the outset and beware little additions along the way.
6. Drawing on a whiteboard together will provide clarification of ideas and more often than not save a lot of time.
7. Your design is going to continually change. Don’t get hung up on your “vision” because you might just be blocking improvement.
8. Learn to take criticism well, and learn to give it constructively.
9. Taking a lo-fi wireframe or sketch to a meeting typically encourages a more lively exchange of ideas as people realize that this is just the first iteration of a final product.
10. Never hesitate to take an incomplete idea to a team member and brainstorm; it can help you get past roadblocks and provide some really amazing ideas.

Hiding behind your iPhone

In the latest issue of my alma mater’s magazine, The Alcalde, the Dean of Communication, Roderick P. Hart, states that the assumption that new media will change the nature of human relationships is false.

“The new media, we are told, have changed the world. The new media, we are told, have even changed what it means to be human.”

Hart goes on to say that this is not really the case, that the new media changes the medium but not the message.

“The new media have changed many things but not all things. We no longer have phonograph records, but we somehow still have music. Newspapers are thinner, but the news continues to thrive. X-boxes have declined, but video games have never been more popular. Teenagers still ogle one another, but they do so first on Facebook. When finally getting together, they film their antics and post them on YouTube, thereby bringing mountains of despair to their parents and their parents’ attorneys.”

I think this is an excellent point, but I believe more is changing than just the medium. The nature of human interaction, in my opinion, is being altered by this new media. I would say that my biggest concern is isolation. We communicate through facebook status updates, tweets, blogs, and many other channels on the internet and though we are technically interacting with more people at once, it almost feels as if we’re isolating ourselves. Instead of discussing a strange event one on one with a friend, I find myself throwing it out as a status update for anyone and everyone to catch or ignore. Yes, we are putting more information out there about ourselves, but we have no idea who is reading it and if anyone even cares. It’s quantity instead of quality interaction, and that has repercussions. While most people can maintain a balance of impersonal vs. personal communications, it seems to me a slippery slope that some might find themselves sliding down.

Beyond that, the new media gives us avenues to avoid interactions with other people. On the bus? Put on your headphones and listen to your iPod. Even better, surf the web on your smart phone and see what your friends are up to. Ignore the people around you, their conversations and easily avoid any possible communication by being engrossed in your own isolated activity.

But despite my fears and groans about how society is crumbling and all is lost, the new media is capable of enriching human relationships. Technology helps us span thousands of miles, allowing us to communicate daily with people that perhaps 50 years ago we would have only been able to maintain as pen pals. Friends in Europe seem so much closer when I can interact through Facebook, sharing messages, having conversations and exchanging pictures with little effort. Technology is definitely on its way to helping us bridge gaps where communication was previously not easy or feasible.

Ultimately I believe society is going through some growing pains. We have the means, but we have yet to fully harness technology to create rich social interactions that are more meaningful then a quick status update or witty comment. Technology is still taking shape and is becoming so prevalent that we must be aware of how it is impacting our relationships, lives and overall outlook. It’s a brave new world and we cannot dismiss that the means in which our interactions are executed will affect us.

On the Future of Technology and Panda Diets

While putting together a presentation for Austin UPA’s World Usability Day event, I was having a hard time with one particular proposal to cut down on waste: design products that are meant to last. Sounds simple, right? Make longer lasting, durable products that simply need software upgrades so that our landfills aren’t full of discarded technology.

This hopeful suggestion has two major holes in it that I’m having a hard time solving:

• Businesses want to sell you the next new, shiny thing and get a lot of money for it.
• People love new gadgets and computers. Early adapters are likely to throw out the old and welcome the new with open arms, if for anything else, to be the coolest kid on the block.

We have a vicious cycle on our hands; they want to sell us something and we as a society openly consent to a wasteful consumer culture.

The only hopeful suggestion I can offer is that we must augment our perspective on buying new products. As we use up more resources and create more waste, I can only hope it will become more apparent to people as a whole. The current trends point towards that, and I’m optimistic. People use canvas bags instead of plastic, we’re careful about the amount of gas we use, we recycle. Perhaps the waste that comes from technology will become a heavier weight on people’s mind and the public’s opinion will force businesses to seek money in other avenues. They might be forced in some sense to create sustainable designs that simply need internal upgrades, or that have parts that can be upgraded to the new shiny standard.

Another, and perhaps more realistic offer, is that companies start building technology from easily recyclable resources, such as this bamboo hard drive. I know that if I my technology could be easily broken down and reused, I wouldn’t feel guilty making upgrades. Even better if it was made completely of bamboo and could be given to an adorable panda to gnaw on. Now that’s just heartwarming.

Mmm, delicious sustainability.

Any thoughts on this? Or even current examples that have these traits? I’m all ears.

Aligning Inspiration

When a friend is trying to get their name out quickly with a promotional site, I tend to recommend that they choose an image they love and begin to build a theme off of that. When my friend Stephanie, the soon to be famous Brooklyn based editor, requested a quick site that would serve as a launching point for her demo reels and video clips, I suggested she patrol istockphoto and see what she found. When she returned a few images, I quickly threw together a couple of suggestions that mainly relied on colors from the image and alignment. My other concern was that they could be coded quickly, so I kept it simple.

We passed ideas back and forth in this way and iteration was quick- the beauty of working on a two person team. This isn’t always a feasible method, but when working with a friend it was an enjoyable experience. Nothing beats playing around with a meaningful image and subtly making fun of your friend in the dummy text. It’s one of those priceless gems I hold dear when working for free.

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.

Here Comes the Heresy

I’m going to commit heresy by disagreeing with Donald Norman’s article, “Words Matter. Talk About People: Not Customers, Not Consumers, Not Users.” In it, Norman proposes that we stop dehumanizing the audience for our products by calling them ‘users’ and refer to them as ‘people’. He recognizes the potential problem of there being multiple roles in the product development process (the people who design, the people that are going to buy the product, etc) but he states that it’s no excuse.

Here comes the heresy: isn’t that what those ‘people’ are? Users of our products? I don’t think that the term itself is derogatory, but our industry has made it derogatory in that we usually picture the bottom of the barrel when discussing users.

Therefore I believe that the real challenge lies in changing our thinking rather than our semantics. We could refer to users as “geniuses” and still reference them in a disparaging tone. In my mind “user” is still a term for people and it does not have to have a negative connotation. It was a term created to set them apart from the developer and the client. This is the person who is going to use the product.

But I’m not totally dismissing Norman’s point. I do agree that we need to be specific in our terminology when referring to users. Sometimes one product will have multiple users and many different roles. Creating personas is one way to deal with this. For e-commerce sites you can have “Sharon the Shopper” and “Mark the Merchant.” This allows you to get to know your target audience and think of them (as Norman requests) as people.

In the end I agree with the need to put a face on your ‘user,’ but I do not think we need to change our vocabulary when initially approaching a project. Instead we need to take on a more difficult challenge; we must change our thinking. I believe Alan Cooper has the right approach when he says, “Think of your users as intelligent but very busy.” Design for easy, efficient use that compliments your user’s strengths and supports their actions. They are our audience and our partners in design; work hard to get to know them and give them the best experience possible.

UX of the Alarm Clock

Every morning I wake up frightened. Not for a legitimate reason such as a bear broke into my bedroom or I’ve had a nightmare where I live in a world without tex-mex ; no. I wake up every morning and frantically scramble to turn off the alarm that is so horrifically noisy and obnoxious it scares the bejeezus out of me.

You’ll remember my brief yet oh so true rant about my coffee pot. Well now I have a new appliance based enemy: the alarm clock. It’s a terrible experience to wake up scared every morning, yet I’ve had that same awful alarm clock for the past 7 years. The fact that I could avoid waking up every morning to its screams hadn’t even occurred to me until a co-worker mentioned that they never used an alarm clock. “You wake up every day of your life- why do that to yourself? Why wake up startled every single day?”

I was reminded of what they said when this morning the awful experience left my heart racing and my resolve firm. No more! I’m researching alarm clocks that allow me to have a better experience and not wake up flailing for once.

People have recognized this problem and have started designing some good ideas. Of course, I’m checking the reviews to see just how effective they are. As with anything, some of these have design flaws that ruin the entire product’s intended purpose. Others are somewhat pricey and I’m weighing cost versus my morning terror…

Regardless, I  refuse to wake up in fear anymore (and I don’t think these spunky alarm clocks will help). No matter how heavy you sleep,  there has to be a better alternatives than the clock radio that some sadist dreamed up.

Negative blockers and tiny gods

It seems so obvious now that it’s laughable, but until I started working in such a large company, I had never realized how key communication and collaboration were in the development process. It was a naïve notion, but I pictured designers mocking up the UI, ‘throwing it over the fence’ (or in this case, the cubicle wall) and having the developers go at it. In my mind, that’s how the process went. Of course, now I realize that it’s about constant communication and the discussion of ideas so that everyone has a personal investment in the product.

In a perfect world, the designer and the developer would work in harmony, traipsing through fields of wireframes and code with utmost respect for each other and open minds eager for revisions. We have good intentions, but that’s rarely how it goes. So when I came across two great articles that detailed the at times tense dynamic, I couldn’t help but send it out to my department.

“These are amusing to read, but basically can be summed up in a few words: collaboration is key to success. Sometimes developers and designers clash over aspects of the development process when instead they should be discussing and brainstorming. These articles detail how these conflicts arise.

One discusses how designers can become ‘the negative blocker guy’.

Another details how programmers can become fickle gods of their code universe.

The articles are part of a series entitled ‘Things I learned the hard way.’ Let’s not learn it the hard way and instead keep these ideas in mind while developing together.

As it says in this article referencing this series, ‘It’s about approaching developers as co-conspirators in producing great work: designers know what needs to happen and developers know how it can.’”

Both have great skills to bring to the table, so let’s become tiny, positive gods of the domain together.

Toolbox Series

I’m going to begin a series that will detail aspects and tools of the UX process that I’ve used and some that I’ve come across in my research. This will include (organized according to topic):

• Motivations
  • Interviews
  • Personas
  • Scenarios/user stories
• Modeling
  • Activity model
  • Task flows
• Ideation
  • Paper prototyping
  • Design studios
  • Design strategy sessions
• Creation
  • Wireframes
  • Mockups
  • Styleguide
• Technical Prototypes
  • Flash
  • HTML/CSS
• Evaluation
  • User testing
  • Design principles review
  • Heuristic evaluation

I’m looking forward to it as I’ve been meaning to explore each aspect of the process in depth for some time. I’m hoping others will find it useful, and certainly let me know if you have something to add to the list.

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.