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.

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.

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.

BA vs. UxD: Beyond Thunderdome

A co-worker challenged me (not in the traditional duel sense) to define what the difference is between a Business Analyst and a UX Designer. I replied with my stock answer of, “BA’s define business requirements and UX Designers define user requirements.” “What’s the difference between business requirements and user requirements? Doesn’t the user comprise the business?” I then replied with, “Not technically” and floundered for awhile before finally giving up and saying that I needed to articulate my thoughts and get back to him.

It’s one of those things that for the past year I’ve taken for granted. For me it’s like asking why the sky is blue and the clouds are white- they just are. I had taken the definition of the two roles as simple enough: I was the designer and the BA was the typically the Subject Matter Expert (SME). They would gather technical requirements, pass them on to me and I would design an experience built upon those requirements. Easy enough, right? But upon my co-workers question a thought occurred to me- one that had been scratching at the back of mind for awhile. I knew my process and documentation like the back of my hand and had evangelized UX like it was the last salvation for software- but I didn’t know the BA’s process at all. All I knew of it was a small percentage of the documentation they generated that was passed my way every now and then.

So what better way to figure it out than to ask? After trimming down the feedback I came up with this: The BA is concerned with the goals of the client’s company, the technical requirements, and how data interacts. The UX person is concerned with how the technical requirements are presented to the end user, how the program flows, and creating a usable system with which the user can accomplish the company goals that the BA has laid out. Business Analysts, as the name implies, view things from more of an implementation and business perspective whereas UX follows the users’ mental models (which is why we make such a concentrated effort to get to know the user).

Another way to put it is that the BA looks to accomplish the goals of the client with the product while the UX Designers design so that the user can accomplish the goal of the client through a well-thought out experience.

That seems to make it clear enough for me, but then again I’ve been over-analyzing it all day, so comments, additions, and critiques are more than welcome.