ixd theory :: convergence or divergence?

Are design disciplines converging or diverging? Good question, but on what? I think the fundamental spirit of design has always been the same; designers work to better the human condition and to amplify ability. However, the diversity of the field is expanding as human experience expands. We can see similarities between practice and process — research, sketching, collaboration, prototypes and models, testing, refinements and the final build — are stages across architecture, visual design, interaction design and product design. (I would even argue these stages show up in engineering, though they look different.) The materials change, but the overall practice of design is consistent. As new technologies, materials and behaviors form, new design disciplines (or new discipline titles) are born.

I am often asked to explain interaction design, and sometimes I tell a story: web design has grown up. We started with paper interfaces for communication, and then along came the internet. Then we became web designers, as new languages were developed to construct the virtual world. As the interactivity on the web expanded, we became experience designers. We are now interaction designers, as we need to bring touchscreen and mobile experiences in the fold, as well as various other touchpoints in the interaction ecosystem. However, the process fundamentally remains the same, a process that starts with wide rough strokes that lead to ever refining circles through experimentation and iteration.

If the design disciplines are converging, they are converging on a holistic theoretical framework that brings together social, environmental, political, physical, economic and individual considerations. Larger systems thinking is underpinning much of the design practice today. so really this convergence on a holistic framework is a divergence of awareness to the systems and patterns of the universe. We are moving simultaneously outwards and inwards in our understanding of how design works and its impact in the world.

Kathleen cca, ixd theory, thoughts 1

ixd theory :: creative tension

We like to think that being a designer is great fun, and most of the time, it is. I really enjoy working with people to solve problems in creative, innovative ways. Sometimes, however, being a designer can be stressful, more stressful than people think. It’s not all color palettes and pretty pictures, and ironically, it can be deciding on just those elements that create tension in the first place.

a clear process

I find a lot of tension in business environments comes from not knowing or understanding the creative process. An added challenge is that the process can change depending on the problem to be solved, and the results are not predictable. Team members that are not designers can feel uncomfortable or intimidated by a process that is unfamiliar, especially if the designer is a diva who does little to illuminate the way. Designers must take the role of educator and guide, to clearly explain their process, how it fits with the project trajectory and how it adds value. Because along with uncomfortable feelings can come an unwillingness to invest company time and money into an unclear process. The designer serves everyone by creating a clear plan and communicating it effectively.

a common language

To extend off the last point, another area of tension in the business environment is communicating about design objectives, strategies and deliverables. Even a designer can have difficulties talking about her work, and the profession has a fairly specialized vocabulary that takes time to understand and use meaningfully. This is also true for every other discipline at the table, each has their own language that helps to communicate meaningfully. The tension rises when we try to communicate across disciplines, without attempting to tailor our message for an uninitiated audience. In these situations, the designer can use her communication tools, such as diagrams, frameworks and design principles, to aid communication. Anything we can do to make our counterparts feels comfortable about talking about design is a win, and will help to foster the collaborative environment necessary to design a great solution.

a collaborative goal

Finally, tensions can arise in a business environment when goals are not collaboratively discussed and decided. If only one part of a team is determining the goals, a hierarchy is created. Hierarchy is not bad, sometimes it is necessary for making decisions and providing leadership, but the hierarchy must extend across all disciplines. When one discipline is over-represented in a hierarchy, or plays a more predominant role in establishing goals, it can lead to the other team members feeling that their point of view and skills are less valued. Designers can play a pivotal role as a facilitator in an organization, to lead workshops to establish goals and ensure all team members have a voice. This can also help keep a design balanced, so that all disciplines can provide the input needed to create a solid solution.

a necessary tension

I do believe, however, that creative tension can be healthy and productive, if it is fostered in a safe, respectful environment. There is nothing more deadening in a team if everyone has the same idea, if no one disagrees or if no one competes to improve a product or process. It is not that the creative environment should create the tensions discussed above, on the contrary, but it should stimulate enough tension to encourage debate and productivity. Creation occurs through resolving tensions, and it’s a real coup to have fostered an environment were this type of creation can flourish.

Kathleen cca, ixd theory, thoughts 1

ixd theory :: investing in task management

I have written before about Producteev, a task management software that really helps me stay organized. I use it every day to keep track of all the assignments I need to complete, which are plentiful! I hope they stay in the marketplace, because I have grown pretty attached to the service. More

Kathleen cca, ixd theory, thoughts 1

ixd theory :: discovering prototypes

The first time I encountered the concept of prototypes was at the Massive Change exhibit in Vancouver. Bruce Mau had been commissioned by the Vancouver Art Gallery to curate a show about the future of design. Instead of curating a collection of objects, he gathered a graduate class of designers to create exhibits exploring major themes in design, such as movement, information and energy. I was volunteering at the gallery as a docent to tour school kids through the exhibitions. With every new show that was mounted, the docent team was given a series of lectures and reading to prepare for the tours. The Massive Change exhibition opened my mind to contemporary design discussions that went beyond the creative brief into questions about practice, ethics and social impact.

I was particularly fascinated by the Movement exhibition that highlighted alternative transportation. It is here that I was introduced to the concept of the prototype through Dean Kamen’s Segway, which was fairly cutting edge at the time of the Massive Change exhibition. Many of the prototypes that were developed for the Segway were on display, and it was fascinating to see how the product was refined through making. Several designs of the wheels, the handle bars and the mechanical body were iterated through foam, wood, metal and plastics. These prototypes were essential to discovering not only how to make this new mode of transportation, but also how to make it appealing and non-threatening to the public. Relentless testing and modifying the designs resulted in a safe, fun new way of movement. Many years later at Burning Man, I saw a Segway with wooden wheels scoot by, and I’m pretty sure this was one of the first prototypes that Kamen’s team had built.

I am mindful of this memory when I work on a project, and I have come to internalize the practice of making things tangible as soon as possible. Research and strategy development are foundational practices in design to develop and refine ideas, but prototyping is the key to bringing the resulting hypotheses to life. Even a simple sketch can help to visualize an idea and worry out its limitations. I believe that the longer you wait to start making, the greater the distance you will need to bridge between your ideas and reality. It’s also harder to let go of your ideas. I also believe that the hands think beautifully in tandem with the mind, and can discover truths about materials that cannot be found through mental exercises. Further, people cannot interact with mental models (not yet). We need to create platforms for interactions to take place, to test real world situations so we can better understand the long-term implications of our designs.

Kathleen cca, ixd theory, thoughts 2

ixd theory :: the power of persuasion

I don’t think it’s ever okay to trick someone to do something, even if it is good for them. But even as I type this, I know there are times when I have used persuasive techniques on people, and this sounds manipulative. I’m not sure why the word persuasion is connected to trickery, perhaps all the years of advertising has cast a negative light on the concept. This is unfortunate, because I believe understanding the mechanics of persuasion is a powerful key in design.

I don’t think it’s manipulative to offer my nephews a movie treat in turn for emptying the dishwasher. They need to learn the importance of the task, and how contributing to the household chores helps make the house feel like a family home. But emptying the dishwasher is not fun, especially when there are some many other fun things to do. By offering a reward for their participation, my nephews get a pleasurable motivation in return for taking the time to do the chore. In the end, everyone wins. Hopefully, as time passes, I will only have to trigger them by asking, and saying thank you will be a big enough reward.

I’ve also used persuasive triggers to drive web behavior. With Pacific Blue Cross, we made a web form easier to complete and responsive to input, and more people bought travel insurance online, instead of calling the help line. We knew that most people were fairly motivated to buy travel insurance on their own, but the difficulty of the process resulted in many lost transactions. We looked at factors such as the time to took to complete the form, the mental difficulty of the process and the cost of the purchase. We made the form responsive to input, so it presented only the information that particular visitor needed. We also provided real-time calculations to make it easy for the visitor to compare and choose several travel packages at once. The result was changing a paper-based transaction to an online behavior. In this case, our understanding of triggers, motivation and ability was a huge help to the customer. I could hardly call this trickery.

But let’s return to ethics. It is highly conceivable that these mechanics can be applied with less honorable intentions, such as encouraging impulse buying or the consumption of harmful goods. I think the alcohol industry has this area covered. But when we are designing a system to help people, and they have explicitly agreed to a behavior change, then we are duty-bound to use persuasive techniques to make the best system for them. The explicit agreement to the change is key, and often, this comprises of signing up for a service or buying a product. It would be wrong not to “trick” the person with persuasion, because ultimately, this is what they are asking us to do. Now we can certainly debate the value of the types of behaviors people are asking to change, but I believe that if we choose projects with human dignity and the betterment of society in mind, we can steer clear of these issues.

mary13 cca, ixd theory, thoughts 1

ixd theory :: proxemic twittering

Our discussion on proxemics in interaction theory class coincided with my 5-year Twitter birthday. At that time, I never would have imagined that Twitter would emerge as a leading communication and promotional tool. Watching this service gain momentum has been fascinating, yet the way I communicate through it has shifted dramatically. As Twitter has become a larger public space, I have assumed a more appropriate social voice.

When I first heard about Twitter at Web Directions North 2007, it seemed like a fun way to stay connected with people. We brought the water cooler conversation into the digital world, and shared brief thoughts about habits, events and work in pithy, humorous ways. At the beginning, I had a small network, so it felt fairly close and personal. I didn’t worry too much about what I would tweet about because frankly, it was only my friends who were listening. However, as the Twittersphere grew, my network started to contain more casual acquaintances. Then I added my Twitter feed to LinkedIn and Facebook, and I felt myself moving into a social space with work contacts. I became more conscious of what I tweeted, as I was aware of how earlier personal comments were suddenly becoming less acceptable in this public space.

The social cues are harder to read on Twitter, it’s not like being at a party where you can politely move away from someone if they start to annoy you. The cues can be almost invisible, such as being ‘unfollowed’ by someone if you say something they perceive as unsavory. You won’t even know they have left your side until you attempt to direct message them. I even remember a time when it was considered rude if you did not respond to a retweet with a thank you. Today, not responding may still be rude, but with the greater social distance and sheer amount of Twitter activity, it’s somehow understandable and forgivable. Proxemic behavior becomes a study of subtle language, timing and the interactive mechanics of the system.

I think the most fascinating modifications with social messaging have come while the system shifts in size and scale. As Twitter has grown, people now have multiple accounts/personalities – one for personal, one for public, one for business – and proxemic distance is controlled through privacy settings, tone and subject matter. Or look at the new service Path, strictly mobile and personal, that mimics the intimate atmosphere of early days on Twitter. Path provides that space for protected conversations (read drunken messaging). One thing is certain: we are coming to understand that the proxemics of virtual space are real, and possibly have more impact than those of real space.

mary13 cca, ixd theory, thoughts 1

ixd theory :: reading in the cloud

There is a used bookstore back home in Vancouver called McLeod’s. I loved going there to browse through the stacks of once-owned books, it was an adventure every time. I never knew what I would discover – they have a great collection of books from the early 50′s, with their leather covers and ornate typography. The physicality of these books is almost as luxurious as the stories and images inside them, and I loved to take home my treasures to read at leisure, enjoying the feel of the paper and the imprints of the ink.

I was always a bit skeptical of eBook readers. My love of the physical book and the appreciation for the craft of book making colored my perception of applications such as the Kindle. As a designer, I lamented the apparent death of this craft, and the closing of so many independent bookstores. My feelings have changed since starting school. The flexibility, convenience and utility of the Kindle have won me over.

I don’t have an actual Kindle device, but have a version of the application on my iPhone, iPad and laptop. The software has been tailored for use on each device – basic reading and bookmarking for the phone, richer notating on the iPad and full notation and citation features for the desktop. The team certainly thought about the most likely situations for reading, and provided functionality accordingly. Moreover, by using the Kindle service, my reading activity is saved in the cloud, and all three devices sync to the most recent activity on opening. This allows me to read anywhere, anytime, without having to carry an extra item with me: the physical book.

Let’s be clear, I still love real books and buy them all the time. I love exhibition catalogs, art books, poetry. These types of content I do not want to experience in a digital form (not yet anyways). The book itself is part of the experience. But for course books, business books, content that I need to actively read (notate), the Kindle experience is excellent. I never liked writing in books anyways, and now I find I am far more engaged with the content. It also appeals to my desire to walk more lightly on the earth, to have less things. And I have yet to truly tap the social connectivity that the Kindle provides, the ability to see other readers’ notations and highlighted content. I feel that this technology has made my reading experience more expansive, and I know it’s just the beginning of the innovation.

mary13 cca, ixd theory, thoughts 1

ixd theory :: usability principles in context

We’ve been reviewing the usability and heuristic principles described by Don Norman (summarized here) and Jakob Nielsen (summarized here) in IxD theory class. It’s a nice reminder, having a few years of usability testing under my belt. It’s funny, because I mostly learned these principles through practice – by testing my own designs and seeing where they failed. It was a valuable education, because you never truly see your design until you watch someone else use it.

It’s hard to decide what principles are most important, because I think they are all useful. I tend to respond more favorably to Norman’s Design of Everyday Things (DOET) principles than Nielsen’s, simply because they feel more human and less cut-and-dried, though both sets of principles are the result of many years of observing and understanding user behavior. Norman’s principles also feel more open, as they were developed in consideration of both digital and physical products, whereas Nielsen’s are tailored to digital interface analysis. As a designer who tries to understand broader human needs and transmedia solutions, Norman’s principles are more flexible for me. I can speak about the principle of affordance, the hints that reveal how to use a object, in relation to a web interface button as well as to a teapot handle. I guess I could also speak about these same qualities in terms of error prevention, to design the object carefully so it prevents misuse, but this feels less elegant.

It really comes down to context for me. Nielsen’s Ten Heuristics are helpful principles when diagnosing the problems in an existing digital interface, and can be used like a checklist. The language through which they are crafted is the language of the software developer, so it is easy to translate user experience issues to the team who will ultimately fix them. The heuristics have an almost scientific, definitely engineer-like, tone, which can be helpful to transform a conversation about design principles, such as contrast and proximity, into one about the visibility of the system status. Norman’s DOET principles are similar to Nielsen’s, but they lend themselves to different contexts, such as thinking beyond the visible system experience into mental mapping or considering cognitive load. I am not saying these concepts are more important than the others, but that Norman’s principles are helpful in concept discussions, such as debating the possible affordances a button could have, the perceived mental model the user has when said button is pushed, or why constraining functionality through a web form is beneficial. I like to pick and choose from both sets of principles, as no design situation is the same. The challenge is understanding these concepts well enough to explain their relevance in a given situation.

mary13 cca, ixd theory, thoughts 1