Today I stopped by Jodi’s Advanced Interaction glass to hear John Beck talk about his experiences working in the real world. John graduated from here 7 years ago from the interaction design program and was one of Jodi’s first advisees. He worked at BodyMedia after graduating and eventually founded Gist Design a small design consultancy here in Pittsburgh. Earlier this semester Dick Buchanan suggested taking a look at his thesis paper to get a good idea of the structure of our papers, so it was nice to be able to hear his thoughts in person.

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.

As the summer is coming to a close, I’ve finished reading two books that I’ve been chipping away at since the beginning. One is Smart Mobs by Howard Rheingold and the other is Everyware by Adam Greenfield. They are both surveys of current technology and the possibilities for the near future.

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.

It’s one of the biggest interaction design related debates. Should we make sure something is measurably better than something else in terms of efficiency and ease of use or should it simply address people’s needs regardless of how? It crops up not only between design and HCI students but design professionals and usability specialists. It’s the whole useful, usable, and desirable deal that we learn about so often.

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?