“Creating something great requires that you surround yourself with people who will do whatever it takes to get it right. It’s an obsession, and it’s fueled by caring. Finding these people is hard, but they are supremely worth it. When people who care attack a problem, magical things tend to happen.”—https://delightedapp.com/blog/care
“You have no idea what you would do if you were poor until you are poor. And not intermittently poor or formerly not-poor, but born poor, expected to be poor and treated by bureaucracies, gatekeepers and well-meaning respectability authorities as inherently poor. Then, and only then, will you understand the relative value of a ridiculous status symbol to someone who intuits that they cannot afford to not have it.”—http://tressiemc.com/2013/10/29/the-logic-of-stupid-poor-people/#
“First of all, one of the things that someone once told me is: this is not brain surgery. This is not rocket science. This is taking care of people and trying to meet their expectations. That’s it. If you identify what their expectations are, then you can let them know right away if you’re going to meet them. And if you’re not going to meet them, then you gotta tell ‘em…Usually what they want is recognition and acknowledgement.”—
“I was somewhat taken back, both in awe of my mom’s K-O defense of the Designer’s Bane and in what was an almost instantaneous re-wiring of how I viewed design and the audience it intends to engage. We so often wrap ourselves in aesthetic considerations that we’re blinded to the necessity of the things we’re actually designing around: purpose, function, and people.”—
The rub is that products are invariably an approximation of the promise behind them. This is probably more true today than ever before, as we can build and market earlier and more easily in a global web market.
Those of us in the business of making products know the drill well. The slide from big idea to customer experience is a long road of approximation; a honing that is often reduced to throwing out what doesn’t work in the hopes of discovering what truly does. That’s just reality, exacerbated 1000x when the gestalt of the product in any way depends on the network of users who adopt it.
This changes the marketing game completely, making the best solution to wire intent and customer context into the bits of the product itself.
“The truth is, learning how to learn is the hardest part of acquiring knowledge. Learning takes courage, to admit what you don’t know; it takes paranoia, to question the wisdom of those who tell you what they know; it takes persistence in the face of the impossibley (sic) formidable weight of the amassed brilliance of those who came before you. Most of all, it takes a brash foolishness to believe that you could ever add anything of worth on top of said brilliance.”—
Love this post. You can learn a lot from people’s reactions to a reference point, even if that reference point is wrong. It becomes a conversation that’s relative to something as opposed to being in absolute terms.
“Many people my age or older half-joke about wishing to be younger. Wishing to be young is a coward’s wish. People who wish to be younger would squander that miracle. They’re wasting the time they have now pretending they’d make better use of a different now.”—
“As the details fade, the stories - what we remember of them - become more interesting as the rough edges smooth out. My memories are better than the reality. Not only is that ok, it sustains me as I get older.”—http://blog.aweissman.com/2013/04/memories.html - Great post on why time and distance between memory and fact can be good/valuable.
“What I discovered is that if you care about other people first, even business people cannot help but care back. Of course, it is theoretically possible that someone cannot reciprocate empathy, and in that case my approach will not lead to a deal. But I haven’t found anyone like that yet, and I wouldn’t want to work with them if I did.”—http://qz.com/77020/the-secret-to-a-higher-salary-is-to-ask-for-nothing-at-all/
“In retrospect, Flowers believes that “the most sophisticated thing designers ever do is decide what to design.” Telling students in an introductory class to design “something” thus challenged them with the most complex task they could face. It’s much more reasonable, he says, to get them to think about “how do you solve this problem—rather than what is the problem.””—http://www.technologyreview.com/article/422808/a-champion-for-supernerds/ Thank you Timehop for resurfacing this profile of MIT professor Woodie Flowers.
“Going beyond empathy is imperative for designers. At its best, our discipline allows people to understand, debate, and acknowledge our differences, but also work for the greater good. Isn’t this an imperative for the larger world?”—
“Modern science was only invented 400 years ago, and it is a good example of what social thinking can do with a high threshold. Science requires a society because even people who are trying to be good thinkers love their own thoughts and theories — much of the debugging has to be done by others.”—Lots of good stuff in this interview with Alan Kay. http://techland.time.com/2013/04/02/an-interview-with-computing-pioneer-alan-kay/
“Simplicity is not about making something without ornament, but rather about making something very complex, then slicing elements away, until you reveal the very essence.”—From this interview w/ Christoph Neimann regarding his app Petting Zoo. Both highly recommended.
Imagine that it is your professional duty to report a cost-benefit analysis of liberalizing immigration policy. You wouldn’t dream of producing a study that counted “men only” or “whites only,” at least not without specific, clearly stated reasons for dividing the data.
So why report cost-benefit results only for United States citizens or residents, as is sometimes done in analyses of both international trade and migration? The nation-state is a good practical institution, but it does not provide the final moral delineation of which people count and which do not.
Timo Arnall debunks the current infatuation with the #NoUI concept, suggesting that it demeans the user and oversimplifies the difficulties involved for design to make complex things seem simple. His argument is directed both at the metaphor of an invisible UI, but also the value of what it…
Perhaps the most important point he makes in my opinion is:
3. Invisible design ignores interface culture
Interfaces are the dominant cultural form of our time.
We cannot ignore and purposefully disregard the cultural context that these products are fitting within. Yes, an interface can be simple, minimal, but it must not be invisible to the user. We need to have distinct visual cues and experiences.
I wonder if invisible is a poor choice of words (kind of like ‘flat design’). I don’t know if writers strive for ‘invisible writing’, but clarity and brevity are certainly valued.
I think ‘implied design’ is more appropriate. I don’t think all interfaces need to disappear (I don’t know if it’s possible either), but designers should certainly take advantage of when interactions and information can be implied which allows other (possibly more important) elements in the interface to stand out.
Semantics aside, this and the original post are well worth the read.
I frequently get asked about process and how projects get structured where I work. One of the main questions is does user research happen. It’s always a little disappointing to say “not really”, but I wanted to think about why that’s the case.
Coming out of school, user research was positioned as an almost magic bullet that can solve any problem. We watched this video about IDEO using research to inform the design of a new shopping cart. It seems like an easily repeatable process of conducting research, gaining insight, and creating a solution. It’s been disappointing to learn after school ended, that the story doesn’t always end that way.
Design/user research at its best is an amazing process. We learn and gain some insight about people that we previously didn’t have which leads to better solution. The problem is (and this might be my problem), we don’t always gain insight. Instead, we confirm our assumptions about the world and it’s in this scenario where we get in trouble. Confirming our assumptions feels like a less valuable outcome because it ends up feeling like the research was unnecessary and a waste of time. This makes research hard to sell in my opinion because it’s hard to get people to admit when something is an assumption versus when something has been validated.
What are ways to make this better? I’ve got a few ideas:
1. Do better research and develop more insight. A fair criticism would be that maybe our research process isn’t good enough and needs to be improved. However, it’s a bit difficult to think every assumption can be overturned.
2. Acknowledge that we are making assumptions in the beginning, and one outcome of the research process is to validate that our assumptions are correct. This makes the scenario above a lot less painful since the expectations are much clearer up front.
This is pretty messy in my head and re-reading the above, it’s messy in words too. I’m hoping that by getting this written and out into the world, I can straighten and smooth things out a bit.
But a more subtle yet much deeper problem lies in the very concept of functionally skeuomorphic interfaces, independently of whether their appearance is realist or not.
That problem is that when borrowing elements from a design’s previous incarnation, you often also bring its limitations along for the ride, even when these limitations have no reason to exist anymore.
For example, calendars have traditionally featured one month per page, because they’re limited by the physical concept of the page.
But although the digital medium has no such limitation, many digital calendars still adhere to the one-month-per-screen rule out of tradition instead of (for example) centering the view on the current week.
Sometimes people write posts you wish you wrote-this is one of those.
An excellent articulation of the problems with skeuomorphism and why the pendulum is swinging towards flat design.
“I learned how to look deeper into the text and ask the right questions to really get to the heart of an idea. I ended up with more questions, but much better and more informed ones. These are all skills I learned from my liberal arts education, and they are essential to the work I do every day.”—
An excellent post from Chad Dickerson, Etsy’s CEO, on why the liberal arts are important. At the end of the day, the things we build are about people. Technology and math certainly help us understand the world, but I believe they’re a means to make the world better and not an end in themselves.
There are loads of lessons to be re-surfaced from literature, philosophy, history, and frankly, humanity. Looking forward to seeing more like this, and hopefully discovering some myself.
I was going through my instapaper queue and instead of just reading things I hadn’t read yet, I went back to revisit things I had already read again, and appreciated the second reading. This led to the thought that it would be great to print a book of my favorite articles from 2012 to have a physical copy.
The idea of a book reminded me of when I was a kid and would pour over video game and computer magazines, reading and re-reading them until they had little more to give and waiting for the next issue in the following month. This stands in contrast to how I consume information now where it’s become about clearing a queue and giving things a second look is a rare occurrence. Having something tangible and orders of magnitude more costly than a list of links leading to an array of pixels on the screen is one way I’d like to try to balance out how I’m taking in things in 2013.
The concluding thought in this sequence is that It would be great to see what other people found worth revisiting again from the past year. If you’re interested in sharing and seeing what others have shared, drop me a note. Looking to have this printed by late January.
But on a sunny day earlier this year, she came inside after tending the garden. There was a letter from Harvard, the type of letter every high school senior dreads from a university — a regular-sized envelope, the ominous sign of rejection.
Cautiously, she opened it: “Dear Ms. Loggins, I’m delighted to report that the admissions committee has asked me to inform you that you will be admitted to the Harvard College class of 2016. … We send such an early positive indication only to outstanding applicants …”
http://www.peterme.com/2012/05/04/user-experience-is-strategy-not-design/ - “UX adds value by bringing design practices to strategic endeavors. This means generative and exploratory user research, ideation and concept generation, scenario writing and roadmap planning. The impact of those strategic endeavors will not be limited to product and service design, but should be felt across business development, corporate development, marketing, engineering, sales, and customer service.”. Couldn’t agree more with this article.
I was grabbing lunch nearby and decided to check out a deli that seemed inauspicious, but it’s been there for a while - so maybe there’s something to it.
Overall there was nothing remarkable about the place, but one small thing stood out to me. I was paying for my sandwich and the woman behind the counter handed me some napkins. The detail that stood out was that the napkins were from Chipotle. My first thought was that wow, that’s hustle.
I wrapped up my lunch, but something left me unsettled about those napkins. I realized that I definitely applaud the hustle, but bristled at the lack of integrity. I’m thankful that the deli taught me something about myself – that I don’t value hustle without integrity, but I also won’t be eating there again.
“A “bad critique” is one of the most valuable things a designer can receive, because it short-circuits the expert blindspot and helps you see things in new and unique ways, and it does it quickly. But sometimes in the design process, you don’t actually want feedback at all: you want affirmation, and you want someone to celebrate your work so you feel good. Learning to understand the difference is critical, because if you ask for critique, people will give you critique. But if you ask people to tell you the three best parts of your design, they’ll probably do it. As Adam Connor offered in his IA Summit talk, “Don’t ask for critique if you only want validation. If you want a hug, just ask.””—http://www.ac4d.com/2012/04/30/do-you-want-critique-or-a-hug
Armstrong and Puri were careful to explain that the Truth Team doesn’t just ignore focus tester feedback. Rather, it analyzes the intention behind that feedback for the most effective solution.
"In that example, the problem wasn’t that there were too many Skags, it’s that the pacing was bad," Armstrong said. "But the tester might not have known how to say ‘The pacing is bad,’ so we had to figure out what they really meant.
"If you interpret everything your testers are giving you as straight fact," Armstrong added, "our solution would have been to remove all the Skags, and we would have had a game that was slightly more boring."
The three rules outlined by the Borderlands developers while they were playtesting are useful for product design as well. Digging deeper into the feedback your customers give you is a key skill for any product person.
“There’s a risk to saying no, but it’s a risk worth taking; a good editor is crucial in product development. It is more likely that a product that has gone through multiple releases has some features that aren’t essential to the value proposition, or just don’t work as the team imagined they would. The right thing to do, the hard thing to do, is to edit these features out, to remove them and help make the product overall a better product.”—