Book Review: Thoughts on Interaction Design

After having the book on my desk for a few months, I just finished Jon Kolko’s, Thoughts on Interaction Design and really enjoyed it.

I first encountered Jon on a discussion board. His posit that an interaction designer’s job is to change behavior irked me. I spend a lot of time encouraging designers to evaluate behavior and build interactions that accommodate them. As a product strategy, the best diffusion situation you could ask for is a product that adds value while NOT changing behavior. After hearing Jon’s side, I think he is a bit idealistic. Few designers ever have the chance to change behavior, much less hold the requisite skill.

That being said, Jon presents many viewpoints with solid research and experience. What I like most about this book is that Jon takes on subjects that are too mundane, too esoteric or too difficult. I found a lot of similarities between his topics and those that tend to consume my idle time. Topics, mind you that I rarely find discussed. Jon touches on process, management and tactical implementation such as fieldwork and politics.

Jon is a good solid writer, but not a great one - partly due to the complexity of his subject matter. He supplements his own material with several articles by other professionals in the design field. This makes for a nice cadence and breaks the reading up nicely. I particularly enjoyed the final chapter in the book, a chapter entitled, “Getting design done” by Ellen Beldner. Ellen is a designer at Google and does not mince works. She has a straightforward style, does not hold back and yet I had no choice but to smile in empathy at multiple points in the read.

This book is an important step for the continued dialog in interaction design.

The power of context in interaction

The business publications are still quite enamored with design in spite of what Bruce Nussbaum says… and the obsession will only continue to grow. So let me set the stage. In the minds of many, interaction and context (if they have heard of it) are the domain of designers working on web sites, web 2.0, and software applications. Experience is this fuzzy feel good thing that most businesses don’t really get (even thought they go on and on about it.) But everyone else that call themselves a designer… they just make stuff the way they know it should be.

About the time that applications find their place on mobile – and I mean in a workable and successful way – business will start to get it. They will see why their desktop aps do not work on a portable hand held device. They will get that the application is all about context and how the use interacts with it. It has little to do with features and capabilities - it has everything to do with leadership and flexibility.

Interaction (or experience) design is bursting from the seams of its genesis. Traditional definitions such as human factors, human computer interface, and information architecture no longer hold. Hr professionals and recruiters have no idea what to call us, what makes us qualified, and how to match us with a reasonable ob title. That is cool!

SIG-CHI, UPA, the ISDA, and AIGA are all fighting for a piece of the turf… but I would not bet on any of these groups. Even the IAI and IxDA are not looking likely to hold the ownership. The problem is that what currently separates IxD (interaction) designers form other designers is not the medium they work in. It is the added value of considering context, interactions and the user. I hope that every design out there is soon calling themselves and interaction designer whether they are working on a web site or a T-shirt graphic. Context and interaction should be ubiquitous concerns.

Memes, lemmings and the next big wave

When Richard Saul Wurman coined the phrase, “information anxiety”, I would guess he really had no idea how extreme it would become. The rush for success and the fever of money have put many of my friends into an overdrive state that simply cannot be sustained.

The outcome of this overwhelming access to information and the time it requires can suck the life out of a person – and a company. Balance is lost and we tire… it becomes so easy to follow in areas we deem less critical. So comes the one, big, giant wave. You know, that single provider that seems to take control. It just becomes easier to buy the iPod, drink Starbuck’s, wear Prada, and read TechCrunch. Rather than find a specialty search engine, we’ll all just use Google. From the undercurrent of cool and hip, to the real insiders, and then of course blogs and even the dinosaur press – we are all seeded with the early memes that aspire to become the singular choice.

Does it make sense to sit back and watch this from outside of Silicon Valley? Can an objective perspective be had, while immersed or drowning in the currents… mush less participating in the froth? Maybe if I dive below I can spot the undertow and the next potential hit? The longer I stay there…

Context beyond interaction

Any interaction designer worth their crust understands the important of context. An analysis of the situation, goals and identifying the user helps greatly in managing an interaction that is optimal.

Architects (as in building, not information) were early experts in context, but that seems so obvious. Most would not think of using residential materials or configurations for an office building or retail location. It just does not make sense. This sensitivity has been lost a bit.

Graphic designers need to understand context as well. Marketing materials must be crafted to work the sales process. They must be specific to the situation and audience. To many designers a brochure is just a brochure. Should the brand or company identity reflect the company and its mission, or should it specifically appeal to the clients and partners? The answer of course, is yes. Context needs to be talked about more by all designers.

The bigger picture

2006 seemed to be the year that a wide screen (950 or so pixels) has become near standard. In the high tech internet world of our nations capital, it would seem that we would be delivering content at the current spec.

The common argument is that a portion of our viewers, consumers, users, whatever you would like to call them, do not or can not set their displays to this size. And so, we should not present content that forces them so scroll. First, scrolling is really not, or ever has been an issue if the content is worthy of consuming. Second, if the consumer’s equipment is not up to the task, I dare say they are soon to upgrade. Lastly, can we not show a tiny bit of leadership and seek to accommodate the majority, while not being entirely insensitive to those lagging a bit behind?

I think the real reason is a campus with half a dozen buildings, several conference rooms on each of multiple floors, and yet not a single projection unit accommodates a size larger than 800 x 600. It could never be presented for umpteen executive approvals. Time to upgrade?

Sustainability and the elephant

There is a growing outcry, gaining momentum, and plenty of press regarding sustainability in design. I can’t give you a single reason why that movement should not move forward full steam ahead. I am a total fan and advocate. But there is an elephant in the room.

The American – OK the world economy, and subsequent prosperity is predicated on the very waste built into our current products and services that this effort seeks to eliminate. Say for instance you develop a longer lasting battery and they now last twice as long. What is the economic impact? Suppose we develop cars and slow the need to purchase and own the newest model. Suppose the developers in the US stop building the 25-year T111 plywood palaces and instead build houses that last for 50 or 100 years. The economic impact of all of this would be enormous.

So, you make the product longer lasting, more efficient and smarter… and the economy suffers. How do we counter act that? Innovation and design is an obvious resource to tap. But it is a double-edged sword. As design gets smarter and innovation increases, so does the value of that product or service. But at the same time, that innovation and design is (hopefully) a marked improvement that displaces and renders obsolete, the preceding product. Entrepreneurialism has been the primary source of job creation in the last 100 years. But again, the same issue arrives. Many of the new companies and jobs end up replacing a great number of those previously in place. There is usually a net sum gain… but it is certainly not pure solution.

If consumers and companies switched their thinking to a value economics we might be better prepared for the inevitable economic impact coming. Consumers tend towards purchasing the cheapest product that will do the job right now. Can we shift to a longer-term approach that reduces the liquidity of our pocketbooks? Companies tend to charge as much as is possible in the short run, knowing that if their product finds the tipping point it will most likely become a commodity. The result being a price based market and impossibly decreasing margins. That is some prize for success.

Hold on folks, the ride will likely get bumpy. We absolutely need to decrease the waste inherent in our lifestyle choices, but the trade offs will be huge. The change difficult and painfull. This may be the ultimate wicked problem.

Will the right voices speak up for design?

I love Bruce Nussbaum. He’s not always right, but he is a constant advocate for design. The problem is, he seems terribly bias. Having Bruce as our high visibility spokesperson is about like Apple’s having Walter Mossberg. Whether he actually is bias or not, is of little consequence… his rare criticism and constant enthusiasm render him dismissible. As for the next most visible mouthpiece Tom Peters, I am not sure who really listens to him but he seems to me to be riding the next fashion wave of business speak and oh by the way, is somehow on the right track.

So who should be speaking out about the benefits of design thinking in the business world? Two types of people should. First, high profile, highly regarded designers that can speak the language of business should take every opportunity available. Stop booking speaking engagements at design conferences where you are3 speaking to the choir and speak in business forums. The other are spokespeople we need are the business leaders benefiting from design thinking. There has to be more than just P&G folks to talk about this.

How do you interview for challenge and innovation?

Market demand for designers and managers that understand experience, interaction and usability is at an all time high. Fortune 500 companies in even desirable locations are having difficulty hiring talent. UI designers on average demand a 10-25% premium over visual designers. Over and over at SxSW I heard people say the “if you are a UI or Ux designer, and not passionate about what you are doing, there is no reason to stay.” But conversely it is hard to leave, and hard to know where to go.

Corporate managers and recruiters are not stupid, just ill-informed. Do not let the fact that they do not know what skills to ask for, and how to determine if you have them, fool you. They get it,they know what you want. You want to be paid, well, and most likely you are looking for a challenge. You want to be passionate about your work. They will work hard to promise all of this and more.

The reality is that very few companies really do innovative work. And unless you are a well-published or noted superstar, it will be a while before you are assigned such a project. Few companies are leaders and so most are followers. The standard follower strategy is to capitalize on the leaders R&D efforts and reduce the cost of keeping pace. The theoretical intent is to garner resources for a time when you can afford R&D and leapfrog the leaders. More likely, that optimized margin will instead go to the executives and shareholders – because that is where the power is. Pardon my cynicism... but that really is where it will go.

So how do you know from within the job interview if you will be challenged? I am not sure you can. Knowing a trusted insider can help. But it is fairly likely that within a few months you will be looking again, maybe moving. Can you say contractor?

Pattern Libraries - all things in moderation.

The obvious trend for the alert web site designer is the emergence of pattern libraries obscuring the use of style guides and design standards. The common thinking that these libraries help the designer to solve problems better - instead of setting rule is absolutely spot on. This is systems thinking and guidelines heading in a more intelligent direction. But here is the rub. As many businesses are obsessed with cost control and reducing variables, these libraries will become a stock catalog of interactions. This is unavoidable... must we, as designers, must not let it reduce risk, experimentation and the expansion of new thoughts regarding interactions. It would be easy to get lazy... there is still a long ways to go.

Mobile context

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to get that when you move web services to Mobile, you have the opportunity to tune that service to mobile context. But how you do that does require some work. Motorola for instance has been doing mobile contextual research for years. As a proactive research initiative, few technologies are more effective than situational studies.

Matt Mayhew's group of cross discipline investigators in Chicago has been deep working this way for a while. How I would love to have access to that insight, but they are wisely, not likely to publish it. Unfortunately, great work on the front end doesn't always translate into great products. In a large corporate structure, traditional business thinking still allows too much opportunity to kill great ideas.

The big downside here is that Motorola seems to be held back by a waterfall process and miles of bureaucracy. The lack of innovation in the days since the RAZR's introduction make me wonder how committed to new process and innovation the company really is. All that we have seen recently are degradations of the RAZR's form factor - that frankly pale in comparison.

Pick your target... please!

Everyday I am amazed at the angst in business. It is prevalent in so many of the companies I talk to. Business leaders are so afraid to lose the current marketshare they have that they can not embrace one critical strategy for success. In order to get the customers/clients that you really want, you must loosen your grip on those that don't quite fit. Set them free and the right ones will come.

For God's sake please pick a target market. When asked who is the primary customer, "everyone" is not an acceptable answer. Yet executives continue to repeat it. Countless case studies show the benefit of owning a market segement... and then replicating that system in another, and another. Do your homework, have a solid plan, don't try to be all things to all people.

Is Chicago the center of American Design Thinking?

Likely so. While the AIGA will want to tell you that it is New York, design has rapidly moved beyond fashion. The folks steering d.school at Stanford have some pretty high aspirations and they will likely get there, but boatloads of money and bunch of PhD's don't necessarily make you great. Carnagie Mellon is absolutely a player. But when it comes to pushing the envelope of design and design's practical applications - IIT/ID is at the forefront. This is not to say it is the best design school, that is a personal decision for each and every design student. But I think critical to what ID brings us is their lack of an undergraduate program. They have picked a specific area/market and doing extraordinary things. Last May's Strategy conference was possibly the best assemblies I have attended (and some say it was a down year). If you have not been to on, I highly recommend it.

The follower's dilemma

Working in a large corporations absolutely waters down your apparent effect on success. Yes, I can be a team player. Yes, I can be patient enough to manage the slow moving sloth like change, but can I exist for long in a company that is comfortable being the follower?

The standard text book strategy for market followers is: optimize the market leaders R&D investments through imitation, reduce overhead to increase margin, and hopefully you will gain enough market share that you can become a leader and then invest in R&D of your own. Hmmmm. I get this. And a dozen or so years ago this worked quite well in many situations.

There are several problems here. First, market leadership can be defined in by more than the single dimension of gross income. Product leadership and brand perception are two important categories that this strategy somewhat ignore. In fact there are plenty of examples that might imply those later measures have more long term significance than the current market share as measured by dollars.

On large question that looms for me is, how do you continue to motivate and attract top tier talent, when the follower's strategy appears to be here for the long term? I have to think that money is only a portion of the incentive picture here.

Independent photography in stock

To say I was disappointed last summer when Getty purchased iStockPhoto is a huge understatement. Getty owns nearly all of the stock photohouses and monopolies, frankly, are not good for anyone. So when I came across Lucky Oliver I was more than just a little happy. An independent stock house with a similar transaction model to iStockPhoto.

Lucky Oliver, or [ www.luckyoliver.com ] has a nice filtering system. When a search is executed, along with a bunch of images, you get a list of search terms pulled from the image library you are looking at. You can selectively turn any or all of these term on or off to narrow or broaden your search. This simple and elegant system works great. Additionally, you can click any of the terms directly and begin a new search.

So I find myself wondering... wondering if stock photography is the new yellow pages. Here is what I mean... if you and five of your other photographer freinds start a web stock house... say by chipping in 20 or 30 decent images each. Then you each contact say... 10 art directors and designers... you quickly have some traction. The each designer tells five others... well I'm sure you get it. Before long... we have a bunch of stock houses available on the net and Getty is no longer the only game around. Or, Getty buys all of us out and we can all retire. Either way... life is better.

Change

Nobody likes change... but too bad. It happens. I tried the new format - and I did not like it. I have gone back to a fairly plane design. Why? I am a designer... I should, after all design my blog right? Not so much. I obviously do not write this blog for money (note: no ads for google). I write to clear my head, share my thoughts and sometimes to vent. If anyone reads it great... if not, I am OK with that as well. But the point of this blog is not as a stepping stone to an online magazine or anything else. The point of this blog is pure and simple - words that express thoughts. It is a simple discipline and in this incarnation, I am not resorting to "cool, or to "images" or anything else. You get words. And if I can not communicate my ideas in this simple forum - then I will fail. And so it goes...

SxSW - a conflicting experience

So - I was asked to speak at this year's SxSW conference. I had always wanted to go, the topic was right and so I jumped in with both feet. I recently wondered if I made the right move, or if I should have gone to the AI Summit. I would choose Austin over Vegas any day. But when it came down to it - making a passionate plee for more user research and better research methodologies was the only logical choice.

And now that I am here - I (think) I made the best choice. As a presenter, I may have a chance to help, to influence and to teach. Ego and accolades aside... I think we accomplished that.

But a trip to a national conference includes some expectation (I am all about manageing and setting these accurately). in my mind, you don't travel a thousand plus miles and spend thousand of dollars (especially when it is someone elses) just for validation. I came here to learn and to hear new ideas. Day three and I am still waiting. I have resorted to setting in some sessions about mobile. Mobile is an area that I have been researching, but have yet to actively touch. Finally, I am coming away from an hour of listening with more than I sat down with.

At this point, what I know about SxSW, is that it is a younger and less experienced crown. It is a nice mix of entrepreneurs, designers and techies. The real opportunities here are to be heard, for netwrking, for face-to-face conversations with normally dispersed talent, and of course for the scene that defines Austin. Live music, parties and warm weather in early spring - not that there is anything wrong with that... more to come.

Beyond agile – where is the next manifesto?

I have been on a quest to research how our design and development team can be more responsive to the marketplace and change. This has lead me to Agile. Specifically, I have been monitoring and participating in an online forums with Agile as the topic. It is as strange a culture as any I have encountered.

The founders of this “Agile Manifesto” still cling to its genesis – now some ten years old. They also seem to get to decide what is agile – as well as what is “Agile”. It is rare to find such a pristine example of arrogance and self-rightousness.

I read an Agile expert’s criticism of design for being “trial and error”, while that seems to be the exact premis underlying everything Agile – try it quick and see if it works.

Apparently, there is nothing better or beyond Agile. This behavior is slightly reminiscent of oh say – the dinosaurs. I however, am not part of the club, so I cannot possibly understand.

For the record, there is plenty about Agile that I like. I like the idea of being more agile and I plan to continue to use many facets of the methodology. There is some really good stuff here. But not being a rote process guy, I do not buy it lock, stock and barrel.

Agile shows only a token look at the potential and power of design and design thinking. I think that is because designers do this better, and these developers need to run this show.

Additionally, I think the state of design (user) research is embryonic. We do not execute research nearly well enough… yet. I do look forward to a time when we have more if it figured out and can then, and only then, start abbreviating and condensing our processes.

I am not likely making agile friends here, but this has got to move forward – with, or without the dinosaurs. Maybe it could be the nimble manifesto. I think it should stay a lower case n.

Request for proposals (RFP's)

Greg Storey at airbag shared a couple of great examples. The real tragedy of RFP's is that they are all too common. I made a decision years ago to never, ever respond to these and I will tell you exactly why.

There are only three reasons to send out an RFP.

1) The company or person has no idea what they need and are looking for you to tell them. Lame.

2) They already have a firm in mind, but don't trust the bid so they would like you to spend a bunch of your time to help determine if it is a fare price. Totally lame.

3) They are going to make a decision based on price. Inexcusably lame.

Is there really any reason to respond to these?

…of metrics for design and innovation. A fool's errand.

“The purpose of business is to create a customer.”
~ Peter Drucker

A business invests in only two things, marketing and innovation. Every other expenditure is a cost – the price of being in business. Marketing and innovation are the two areas where a business has an opportunity to reap extraordinary rate of return. Metrics are absolutely necessary and typically well established for costs such as accounting, finance, operations, customer service and manufacturing. But metrics, as we know of them now, have no place in measuring the success of design and innovation.

Bill Breen’s recent column[1] in the February issue of Fast Company discusses the thinking behind Chuck Jones’ efforts to install a metric system to gauge the success of innovation at Whirlpool. I suppose it varies from company to company, but I think the notion of metrics specific to innovation is a fool’s errand. It represents the business world’s efforts to conform design thinking to the ideals of command and control management and the language of business. The true measure of innovation is success in the marketplace. Granted, there are a lot of steps along a process that can sour a potentially stellar product, and metrics are perfectly appropriate for many of those steps. (full paper)

Building a killer team for innovation part (7 of 6)

Firing. One last thing to add, don’t be afraid to fire a team member if it is not working. It is nearly always the best thing for them, you and the team. Typically the team knows well before you that this should and will be relieved when it is finally done. Setting employees free when they are incompatible is often the push they need to re-evaluate, find their true calling and move forward. It is a terribly difficult thing to do, but it is much easier than loosing clients, your best employees or ultimately laying god people off. Be definitive and do it quickly.

Spend most of your time with and for your best designers. Like focusing on your strengths, focusing on designers with the most talent and have the most potential, it is how you should best spend you resources. If you do this effectively, you will in fact loose more designer than if you coddle the low performers. But you team will ascend to greater heights and you will attract more talented people and higher quality clients. Set that bar high