Probably the least exciting part, but most crucial part of any field is the salaries that people get doing it. Higher salaries means that more people are interested and that people who practice are most likely valued more. I think it’s an interesting metric to gauge design and specifically interaction design’s place in our culture, especially considering that some form of what we do qualifies as one of the best careers of 2008.

As the end of the master’s program approaches, it’s more relevant than ever for all of us second year students. That being said, I came across two documents, one from Carnegie Mellon and one from the Institute of Design in Chicago that polled some graduates:

IIT puts the median at $80-$90k, CMU gives a conservative $66k, and US News has some pretty high numbers, except for Pittsburgh. Of course, these should all be taken cautiously, considering the number of people who responded, the various levels of experience that people might have, and what the job actually is.

Also, pulled these from the IxDA discussion list:
AIGA Design Salaries Website
AIGA Survey of Design Salaries 2007
Information Architecture Institute Salary Survey 2006
Usability Professionals’ Assocation Salary Survey 2005
Jakob Nielson’s Salary Trends for Usability Professionals 2006
Peak Usability Salary Survey 2002, 2004

The types of work and titles are questionable… but if anyone has any other sources, I’d like to hear about em.

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?