If anything, it introduced normal folk to a little bit more depth to design than you normally get–more problem solving and less “What Not To Wear.” There are other conversations that do a better job of talking about some of the details and criticism, but I saw it as a simple reminder of some core design issues, like collaboration, sustainability, prototyping, empathy with users, etc… and seeing how others take them on is fascinating to me.

The more interesting part of my trip fell on the second week, where I was free from work obligations, and had the opportunity to visit Walt Disney World in Florida. While most people I know have visited Disney-themed amusement parks as children, this was my first time. Not having come to Disney as a child, I felt like I was able to look at things with fresh eyes, and since I was visiting nearly a full year after completing design school, I naturally looked at everything through the lens design—thinking, making, or otherwise. Being immersed from the minute I got off the plane, I found the entire Disney experience from start to finish to be deeply fascinating from the idea as a whole to the excruciating attention to detail throughout.

The first thing I was struck with was the immense amount of area that the parks covered. I never realized that Disney was made up not only of multiple amusement parks, but scores of resorts, a “downtown” area, and a boardwalk. On the first day, while we boarded the monorail into the Magic Kingdom I was wowed by the fact that they had a self-contained transportation system via bus, rail, and boat. I wondered about how they planned the parks, the transportation system, and all the integration points to work for most everyone. It seems like an immense feat, especially when you’re pushing that amount of people through the park each and every day. Not to mention to variety and types people—young, old, native, foreign, disabled, etc… Talk about a wicked problem.

While I don’t know much about the history of Disney or the Disney Park beyond the name being the last name of the creator, my initial reaction to seeing and experiencing the Disney parks is that something of this magnitude and over-the-top-ness could never have emerged from a group of folks looking to increase revenue, growth, or design products purely based on what people say they want or need. The idea of multiple amusement parks and resorts that make up a kid-friendly near-fantasy world is not something that emerges out of a spreadsheet or a an afternoon meeting. In fact, I find it hard to imagine these types of grandiose ideas being entertained for more than a few seconds in most corporations. It would be deemed too risky, overambitious, expensive, and likely not providing a clear way of measuring the return on investment up-front.

So how do ideas like this flourish? How does something like Disney World develop from the insides of Walt Disney’s brain into its current manifestation? And how is it able to sustain its vision long after the person who created it is gone? It would be fun to dig into some of these questions and learn more about the process that people went through to get Disney World created in the first places, and what their process is for creating additional attractions within the parks. It seems to me that Disney is one of those places that’s teeming with insights and lessons about design, since they have a need to create and maintain products at all levels of design, be it communication, industrial, interaction, service, organization, or otherwise.

Often times, I feel like people underestimate this value and are perfectly content using conference calls as a replacement. And really, sometimes it’s completely necessary. If work is distributed across offices in different countries, it wouldn’t make sense to constantly fly around the world in order to keep up with everyone.  So in that respect, email and voice conferencing are used for efficiency. There are studies that show that a large percentage of our communication lies in non-verbal cues, making this somewhat troublesome. Whether or not these studies are valid in a real-world context, at the very least there is an increase in empathy with people you have met in person and worked with compared to those who only exist as a disembodied voice. You are able to see them as human beings and make excuses for them if you have disagreements.

While discussion itself can be difficult without being co-located, I find that design work is exponentially difficult in these situations. If you tend to work with physical media (stickies, paper sketches, etc…) an extra step is added in order to scan in or transcribe information. And brainstorming over the phone? Not worth it. At least not with today’s tools.

One way to help with this is to start projects with the intention to cater to everyone who is involved. This might mean trascribing notes directly onto a Wiki or knowledge management system, rather than starting in a notebook. It also means getting an online sharing system agreed upon early on so that photos of whiteboards, scans, and other material show up consistently in the same place. I have heard suggestions of video conferencing, and while this might be an improvement, video quality is usually low and the time it takes to get it working sometimes cuts into time allocated for the working itself.

Either way, I find this to be a challenge. Not only is communication lost, but a general sense of the culture of different locations and work groups is alien until you engage in person. I haven’t found any magical way of working this out, and I know there is a lot of software that tackles this problem. I don’t necessarily think that it’s a problem that can be solved outright, but is more of a band-aid until people are able to co-locate. Are there any tools out there that come close? I’d be curious to know what has worked best for people.

Having nearly a year to craft a paper means that there is a lot of time where you are secluded in rooms full of books wondering if you still have an ounce of sanity left. With Dick Buchanan as my advisor, our meetings usually consisted of nudges and strategic questioning about the ideas involved. He helped me to look at things differently and explore sources I never would have, and generally gave a broader perspective of whatever we were talking about.

Anyway, I was inspired to write something about my paper because of a recent Adaptive Path post that had some web tools that analyze writing. I thought I’d throw my paper in and see what came out:

One of the things that happened to me, and I’m sure happened to a lot of people, is the discovery of so many more ideas and topics than you first start out with–via readings, discussions, classes, etc… So it almost turned out to be too much time as I had to fight to scope things down. Overall, it was a good experience, and made me a lot more confident in my writing and research process.

Theory
The book’s ideas are related what I wrote about in my thesis paper. During my research, I had a difficult time resolving the word technology – a word that engineers, anthropologists, and everyday people use as opposed to product – a word that designers, and perhaps business people use. Technology usually refers to the collection of products we use that contain a variety of computational components. When we talk about technology, we are more often than not talking about digital/information/high technology. The problem I see is that just using the word technology usually implies a sense of inevitability–which the authors were trying to push back on.

By talking about the man made world in terms of a product, for example, saying interactive product, more responsibility can be give to the people that actually create them and make decisions about them. Designers, policy makers, and the communities that use the products don’t deal with pure technology in their everyday lives, but with products that have been intentionally shaped. Because of this, I’ve found the idea of a product ecology to be more grounded in the reality and language of everyday people.

Their argument about using an information ecology is useful and interesting. It balances the way that technologists might look at a situation that incorporates technology. It reaches out and makes connections between an idea that comes from biology to our everyday life. One of the most valuable things about it is that it gives a set of dynamic characteristics (system, diversity, coevolution, keystone species, and locality) that we can use to study, interpret, discuss, and think about. At the very least, it is a source of inspiration to think about things in a different way–even if it seems too abstract at times.

Practice
Why does any of this matter and to whom? Well, the ideas in the book can be useful to lots of people, but I’m going to stick specifically to designers. As the things we design become more complex and integratated into our contexts, I think it can become harder to tease out all the parts and think about them. To a service designer, this might seem obvious–that there is a complex system with lots of parts that need to be accounted for, not the least of which includes people with their needs and desires. But I still think that it can be useful in different stages that designers find themselves in, here are some quick thoughts:

• Researching: Generating interview questions around information ecology characteristics.
• Synthesizing: Grouping data collected during research around characteristics of the information ecology.
• Communicating: Building models based on an information ecology’s characteristics.
• Generating : Coming up with ideas that cater to a living, evolving system that fit with people’s personal values. Brainstorming around an information ecology’s characteristics.
• Refining: Fleshing out concepts that take into account the characteristics of an information ecology and referring back to them.

It might look a bit deterministic at first, but I’m not saying this should take the place of whatever a designer does already or that they should use it at every step of the process. It’s just another tool that can be used when needed. The authors go into detail–perhaps a bit too much detail–with examples involving libraries, schools, workplaces, classrooms, and hospitals. Being anthropologists, their focus is mainly on the researching aspect and less on the other phases of design.

Technology
Regardless of people’s view of technology in the world, designers should always have a good sense of what is happening and what will happen with the potential materials of their products. It gives us more resources to solve problems, but also more ways to screw up. BBC has a pair of lists one that is looks back at technology with impact, and one that looks forward at technologies on the rise. It’ll be interesting to see whatever happens with WIMAX, especially with regards to services that aren’t just about getting entertainment to people at higher bandwidths and with higher resolution.

Ideas and People
To do anything worthwhile with the technology, not only is there a need for people to design successful products, but there is also a need for someone to monetize it and distribute it to others.

From the always-interesting Springwise, they posted the top ten telecom and mobile business ideas of 2007 . With all the mobile stuff I’ve been involved with, it’s a nice look at some ideas people have had and developed into businesses of some sort.

There’s also a great interview with Trent Reznor by Wired in either text or audio. Most of it is him describing the ARG (Alternative Reality Game) that he developed with 42 entertainment for the release of his previous album. I think what’s great about it is not only his realization that he needs to keep up with new generations of listeners, but the fact that he understands what is going and is passionate about doing things right for his audience. I see parallels with what interaction or experience designers do, in that the value is no longer only in the traditional product (in this case the music tracks), but the entire experience surrounding it. I think if anyone wants to be ahead of the game, they either have to distribute media in ways that are faster and more convenient than the illegal channels or they have to approach their product with the assumption that the media is free and they need to build something else related to it that will bring in profits.

On the opposite ends of creation for profit is an audio interview with Tony Dunne and Fiona Raby by Core77, which many people probably came across through the experientia blog. It’s great hearing them talk about what they do, and it makes me want to grab their books.

Usability/User Experience Specialist
Despite the awkward title and contradictory descriptions, its probably a good thing that the type of work we do is on the list of Best Careers of 2008 (hopefully much longer too, eh?). The link comes from the IxDA discussion list, and even just browsing I could tell it created quite a stir, especially with the nearly six-figure salary they tacked on. Although there references are all about HCI and Human Factors, I think the day in the life description sounds a bit more like design.

Knowing
A final link, again to BBC, is a nice little list about 100 things we didn’t know last year. Reminds me that even with the catastrophes that mark time, there is also progress in our generation of knowledge as a society, even if its only random tidbits of info.

John talked about his design philosophies and described the basis for the work he does. He approaches design as a way to solve complex business problems in a strategic and tactical manner. He talked a lot about the work he did with BodyMedia and how it is about behavior change for people, but that you can’t force people to change, but it is more of a change of the awareness of their behavior by having access to explicit information about their habits over time. It sounds like there is the ability to use a suite of devices along with a web service to get information into a proper way to show others, including your doctor.

Data
An interesting point he brought up related to BodyMedia devices is the contrast between data that is collected by the devices and those that are entered into the system. There are some things, such as food intake, that needs to be entered manually and is presented alongside data that from the devices, making it somewhat problematic if people aren’t as honest as they could be.

John also talked about individual differences in motivation. I found this really interesting, since my thesis project is already dealing with motivational issues.

• Numbers themselves can be motivation for some people, such as seeing the number of calories spent each day.
• Coaching and branding might also motivate people, if they  have some overarching cohesive system that is telling them what they should do next.
• The social aspect of sharing also helps motivate people, as they share the data showing the energy expenditures over a week with other people using the same system. People can also challenge each other and cooperate like when people go jogging or work out together.
• There is also the social networking aspect where people can meet and find others who are doing similar activites and have similar goals and values
• Feedback at the right moment is also important. Giving someone access to their data at the exact moment when they are deciding whether to stay indoors or go outside is more useful than after they have committed to staying home and doing something else.

Design Studios VS Design Consultancies
A lot of the conversation revolved around the idea of different possibilities in places to work, which was good for me as I make my decision of what I want to do afterwards.

Studio: You’re going to make the actual solution. You hire people to do the design of different parts, build it, and also support it.

Consultancy: More focused on research and planning. You need to be able to facilitate discussions with client teams. The interdisciplinary nature of CMU is good for this. You become the voice of design and speak for the end user.

This turned the discussion into what they end up delivering to clients at the end. Those being: Research reports, plans, scenarios, early conceptual prototypes, wireframes, or even flash prototypes. So there is quite a variety, as expected

Important Skills 
Talking about the deliverables naturally transitioned to the creation of them and skills needed to be a part of a successful design team. A lot of it might be obvious, but it was nice to hear it again.

• Ability to communicate clearly, especially to clients
• Ability to listen – hear what people are saying, understand it, and re-frame the discussion in the interest of the end user.
• Ability to find ways that users already deal with an issue (ex, paper journaling their wight loss)
• A passion for questioning and figuring out why people do the things that they do.
• Reiteration of importance of communication (it’s hard to teach and often missing)
  • Speaking clearly
  • Knowing social conventions of a group (esp. clients), when to talk, when to let them talk
  • Not just verbal, but the idea of the consultance’s stance. People are paying you for knowledge and leadership through a problem. You should clearly show your value and be able to stand your ground. People often think that you are just billing them without giving them something useful.
  • Etiquette when sending emails, naming files, logical organization of meterials. Everything is “part of the argument” and is a reflection of your relationship with the client.
  • Consciousness with your deliverables… even the breaking down of cost-benefit analysis.

He talked about how not only does this help them get new clients by being “buttoned up” but more importantly it helps them retain clients. 80% of the clients they work with are ones they started working with in their first year as a company.

To wrap up he talked a little bit about how he decided to work with BodyMedia and why he ended up starting his own company. Overall it was really worth hearing and to get some more real-world grounding. Sometime I feel like we are in a bit of a fantasy land while in school and forget about day to day logistical issues that we don’t have to deal with here. Gist definitely sounds like an interesting place and I like to hear about people who are working in the design world doing stuff that they enjoy that is positive and beneficial rather than designing simply to get more sales.

Smart Mobs
This book, while it varies a lot, is mostly about mobility, networks, people and what is happening with all that. It’s a look at what happens when people as a group interact with technology, what we have done with it, and what we will be facing in the future. It dips into a lot of philosophical discussion and talk of ubicomp.

Everyware
Similar to Smart Mobs, it’s talking about the future, but the focus is more on technology that we are using and will use in our daily life. It’s a very good overview of recent research and ideas that are out there, with a greater sense of urgency than Smart Mobs. As a designer himself, Adam Greenfield takes a stab at some initial principles.

Smart Mobs using Everyware
The books are similar enough that I have trouble distinguishing my thoughts about them. Both of the authors call themselves futurists, and spend most of the time talking about the future state of things as derived from current technology and intentions by research groups and companies.

The most valuable thing I’ve gotten from both of them is a deep pool of resources that they bring up. They both bring up a lot of philosophical trains of thought, researchers, manifestos, and books that help to understand what’s around the corner. I think it’s great because a lot of them are confirming stuff that we already learned like Goffman’s various writings on the presentation of self.

 They also bring up and explain technologies that are enabling new ways of interacting with each other that we don’t really have time to cover in school. Knowing about what is going to happen with data networks and embedded technology will probably help to ground design ideas a little better

The other thing I liked about both books is the balanced approach they take. They are cautiously embracing the new, which is probably a healthy thing to do. They bounce back and forth, describing utopias and dystopias of the future. Both authors really want to preserve human dignity and use new technology to benefit us rather than just because we can, much like we are taught throughout school.

There is a strong sense of urgency in both of the books. They are talking about the inevitable and we have to be prepared to deal with complex situations that are very different from what we are used to. I think their sense of urgency is already being answered through user-centered design, I hope.

Not to go on too long, but I think both of these books are important for designers of all kinds, especially with mobility where it’s at today. I have heard lots of people distance themselves from anything technical because of the connotation that interaction design already has, but I’ll reserve my thoughts on that for later.

Criticism?
I don’t have anything that critical to say about the books. To people who are already familiar with this stuff, the books might not be so useful. For designers, they don’t offer many answers, but mostly questions and considerations we need to understand.

Smart Mobs came out in 2002 and Everyware in 2006, so sometimes it feels like Adam Greenfield is simply updating the state of things with his book. Smart Mobs takes a very massive approach and covers a lot of different topics, whereas Everyware is a little more focused and organized in bite-sized chunks. In terms of a knowledge resource, I found Smart Mobs to be a little deeper, and I plan on actually buying it just to reference. There are a lot of great quotes and references. There’s also the Smart Mobs blog which updates with news relevant to stuff that is talked about in the book. It’s a shame Everyware doesn’t have something similar, unless I missed it. Either way, both were well worth it, and are easily skimmable.

PS. No, I haven’t started reading for my thesis project yet.

Jakob Nielson wrote a couple of weeks ago asking Should Designers and Developers Do Usability? I don’t want to be too judgmental about the guy, but this article makes me wonder if he is a little out of touch with things. Like many others (I’m looking at you Don), he wants to put people into neat boxes that do certain things. There’s this ridiculous view of designers as artsy touchy feely people that create things on a whim, and that considering usability, a very planned and logical practice, is of no interest to them.

“Design obviously appeals to people with a drive to put things together, whereas usability requires analytic thinking and conceptualization skills.”

His argument is that having specialized people, like himself, around is the best case scenario. Or you could sign up for the not-so-subtly-plugged 3-day $20,000 seminar. I agree with him to a certain point. Sure, you can’t have one person doing everything, but I think he’s stereotyping designers a bit here. There is plenty of analytical and conceptualization going on when designing.

Which is why I like the new title-grabbing article from Adaptive Path on Why usability is a path to failure. Not because he is bad-mouthing usability, but because he is saying that it’s not an end or “Usability is not a strategy for design success.” Which I agree with completely. I think the author goes a little too far though. There is some point in the process where it does become the focus. You have to set aside your thoughts and dig in. Like in his example, there is a point when developing that a photographer is spending their time getting their prints developed with the right exposure, cropping, etc… and making sure everything is clear when taking it through the chemical process.

So I guess I sit in the middle. Usability shouldn’t be the entire focus of a product, but there should be some time and energy dedicated to it at some point depending on the constraints. I think Jakob makes a good point in that the value of usability professionals is that they might have a lot of experience with user behaviors and might be able to correct some problems. But don’t we do that as well?

Bad Apple
I don’t really know much about them as a company besides the rumors that are circulated. For a long time I had no interest in them and I regarded them as people who made stuff for simpletons. I started using them in undergrad at the computer labs just because the log-in process was significantly faster. After using them extensively during the first year of grad school, I’m totally sold on their simplicity and I tell everyone to get one who isn’t tech-savvy. They are computers made for people whose goal is do get stuff done and not to just use a computer.

All politics aside, that’s how I see the iPhone. Like any product, there are lots of benefits and detriments. But Apple has attempted to make a device for people whose goal is to call, get info, and listen to music. Not only that, but they announced and presented it in a way that is easy for people to understand and realize why they would want it. We learn in school how important the argument is for new products and this is a prime example. They are stressing the functionality of it in a clear and concise manner that makes sense, there’s no shame in that.

I see it as a really positive wave of energy because they are proving how important user-centered design and clarity is for mobile devices. Their innovation was not in bringing a new technology to market, but taking existing technologies and features and packaging them in a way that will hopefully allow for a greater experience for people.

Money, Money, Money, Money 
While this is great and all, it’s not worth it to me. It’s probably also not worth it to a large percentage of the population that will settle for free and low-cost phones. I was considering buying one at first because I had never shelled out the cash for a phone or an iPod, so it seemed like it might be worth it. But $600 plus a $60 phone bill is not something I want to deal with right now.

Perhaps when there is a potential for longer-term usage (changeable battery, memory extensions, etc…) I might consider spending that much on a product. So whenever good design becomes affordable for the everyday person, I’ll get in line the night before. For right now I’m fine just ogling at it and wishing for a free one.