How would you like to tap your wrist to engage the clock embedded in the OLED wall? Rub your fingers together to request a text message with your bank account’s balance? Or rub your ear to have the speaker phone in the center of the table adjust the volume?

The Hasso Plattner Institute out of Potsdam, Germany recently published a paper on Disappearing Mobile Devices. The paper does not attempt to act as a proof of concept but instead outlines the possibilities of interactions with mobile devices as technology becomes smaller and embedded into the very fabric of our lives, whether it be our buildings, our clothing, or ourselves.

A brief history of mobile devices

Focus has changed over the last few decades from the development of Notebook computers to PDAs and mobile smart devices to wearable technology and gestural interfaces. Wearable technology is starting to pick up momentum with niche items like the Bluetooth headset that doubles as a ring (scheduled to be available early in 2010). Likewise, gestural interfaces have received acclaim in the media—thanks to the box office success of movies like Minority Report—and have begun receiving more attention in the IxD field itself as books like Dan Saffer’s Designing Gestural Interfaces have become available.

Opportunities

By focusing on how a user interacts with a device over what the device looks like, Ni and Baudisch outline three main interactions that disappearing mobile devices could make possible. These are:

1. Touch Scanner
2. Motion Scanner
3. Directon Scanner

The image below illustrates some of the key factors that differentiate each scanner type.

Types of Scanners

• On a high level, touch scanners can sense if the device is being touched by an input device or if any input device is out of range. This simplifies to binary input of On/Off. While this is not a practical method of inputting long streams of data such as text, this allows simple switches to be engaged and simple combinations, such as two long taps followed by one short tap, to allow slightly more complex actions.
• Motion sensors are one step more advanced than touch scanners, where a touch and motion sensor work in union. Rather than simply measure On/Off, motion scanners can also detect general direction. Complex interaction such as drafting text it still limited with motion scanners but the technology would allow scrolling through a list or setting a dimmer switch with more ease than a simple touch scanner.
• Still more complex, direction scanners employ three non-linear touch sensors. With this triangle pattern, the technology can sense more complex shapes and gestures. This allows for not only the capabilities of touch and motion scanners but allows with more ease complex data input such as shapes and basic text.

Possible applications include embedding sensors under a person’s skin for text input and signalling different applications within an environment. Studies performed by the authors investigated opportunities of using Graffiti style of input methods with various degrees of success. Implications surrounding the dexterity of individuals, memory of a purely gestural system, and tiny finger constraints are just a few breakdowns of this new technology. Still, the studies performed outline a lot of potential for where embedded sensors and interfaces can move on both a personal and a social level.

Applications

Amy and Dr.Peter Elliot (Dylan Walsh), Congo, 1995

Think back to the 1995 movie Congo and the backpack the gorilla Amy wore to sign to the human cast. Now imagine the same technology with embedded sensors: no more heavy backpack or intrusive technology reminding others of a physical limitation. On a more casual level, imagine your public transit pass being embedded into your fingertip. No more fumbling for a metro card, taking off gloves to get into your pocket; instead, you could simply swipe your finger over the scanner as you hurried to catch your train.

While we won’t see this technology implemented at our local grocery store just yet, it is interesting to see how the simple models outlined by the authors can open the doors to new interactions and technologies in a more natural and social manner than mobile devices presently allow.

–

Image from Disappearing Devices

People love statistics, especially about themselves. With the rise of personal informatics we see the question “How am I doing?” getting ever more popular. I was wondering if we could use this to create a game out of email that would make life easier and happier at the same time.I’ve recently become interested in sites that answer the question:
“How am I doing?” Apparently so have a few other people…

New startups offer to help individuals improve their performance— in a variety of areas: Rypple helps individuals improve themselves professionally through peer feedback. Klout helps people realize the effect and reach of their tweets. Dopplr lets us track our travels (and our carbon footprint). iPhone apps like trackyourhappiness.org produce a happiness report based on simple self-reporting. According to Hunch, I’m “an optimist” (based on answers to hundreds of microquestions). And, the app I’m currently working on is designed to help people follow through on commitments.

But what about business applications like email, time tracking or  business intelligence applications? Is there a place in this “buttoned-up” world for these same kinds of personal feedback loops?

A little perspective

If we step back from software and Web apps, the idea of tracking performance is nothing new. Baseball cards reveal every numeric detail of player’s performance. Schools grade students’ performance. And many people routinely track their diets and workouts. Even in an agricultural society, having a good or bad harvest is the ultimate comment on how well a farmer did that season. But technology is making it easier to passively monitor personal details we couldn’t monitor just a few decades ago.

Where games like Pac Man rewarded us with various fruits, more intricate games like Guitar Hero break down our every action: percentage of correct notes, longest streak, breakdown of success by parts of a song– the list goes on! Through this report, you quickly learn–or confirm–which sections you need to work more on (and you can find out just how close you are to being a rock deity). But those are games, right?

What about hypermiling? For the first time in my life, I’m conscientiously tracking my gas mileage. I’m really curious to see if my diesel car can attain the advertised 56 MPG (or at least something in the 40ish range). Thanks to a couple of iPhone apps, I can track any number of automotive details. This is also the first car I’ve owned that displays real-time MPG feedback. The result? I’m learning to adjust my street driving (slower starts, coasting at times) to improve overall gas mileage.

167 miles per gallon?! (Some coasting may have been involved...)

Is hypermiling a game? Does this really even matter?

“Serious Games”

What we’re really talking about is setting up systems whereby individuals can (1) see in a tangible way (2) reflect on, and (3) learn from their past behaviors. Think about what Mint is doing for personal finances, or Nike+ for workouts.

From report cards to Pac Man– we’re talking about the same thing: feedback loops that affect future performance.

Through personal informatics or competitive scoreboards, when someone (or something) holds up a mirror to our behaviors, we gain information to help us improve in that area. Consider twitter. I think it’s something as simple as twitter’s follower count (and now list count) that has made this “How am I doing?” concept top of mind for many people. I mentioned hypermiling earlier. And we’re seeing new devices to help us monitor energy usage in the home. But why aren’t these same kinds of feedback loops more common in everything from invoicing tools to email apps? Why doesn’t email have a scoreboard? Seem far fetched? We’re talking about individuals– we respond to the same psychological nudges, whether we’re working or playing.

Making a game out of email

“Okay,” you’re saying, “interesting ideas but how might we apply these ‘numeric nudges’ apply to a more serious subject?

To test my hypothesis– that yes, “serious” applications can be playful– let’s go through the process I’d use to transform email. Starting with the stated goal of “inbox zero,” let’s design a system that might help us become better email players. Let’s create The Game of Email.

1. Identify specific behavior patterns to encourage (or discourage)

What behaviors do you want to change? Is there a behavior you want to see more? Maybe it’s a bad habit you’d like to eliminate? For some applications, identifying this can be challenging. Fortunately with our example, thousands of bloggers and self-help gurus have already identified both good and bad email habits and translated these into helpful tips like:

• Never open an email twice;
• Read emails in the order they were received;
• Answer briefly;
• Respond in a timely manner;
• Only check email twice a day (or once an hour);
• …and so on.

We’ll build on these tips for our little email game.

2. Translate desired behavior patterns into data that can be passively tracked and measured

Once you’ve identified (and prioritized) specific behaviors to influence, let’s see if these can translate into specific data that can be passively monitored by the system. Sometimes, translating an idea is straightforward: With something like “respond in a timely manner” we can start a timer from either the moment an email is received or opened for the first time. Be careful though, depending on your context, even a simple translation like this may need to factor in things like business days or adjusting what “timely manner” means to various people.

You don

The biggest challenge you’ll find is with tracking qualitative behaviors. For example, if I wanted to know how clearly I’m communicating in my emails– that is much more difficult to measure compared to simply tracking if or when I responded to an email. That said, tracking qualitative achievement is possible when we introduce a social layer, something I’ll mention below.

3. Attach points to these behaviors
Now that we’ve identified the behaviors we want to encourage, and determined how to track those behaviors, let’s recognize them. We’re going to award and deduct points for the behaviors listed above; points earned will form the basis of our scoring system.

Using “never open an email twice” as an example, a good system would encourage you to:

• Read and delete;
• Read and respond;
• Read and file, or;
• discard (without reading).

So, we offer helpful text to remind people of these 4 options (think of this message as training wheels that eventually go away) and then we award points based on behavior:

• +10 points for taking action when you open email;
• 0 points for opening an email a second time;
• - 5 points for opening it a 3rd time (and so on).

If we were to create a similar point scale for the other behaviors we identified, you end up with a total number of possible points and actual points earned. So, for a specific email exchange, you might get something like this:

4. Translate points into a periodic score and other useful information
While tracking performance per email exchange is kind of interesting the first few times, this novelty gets old quickly. Think about ways you can introduce cycles into the system– an end of month reports is a great idea to see how we’re doing overall. By slicing the data in different ways, we could also learn what our average response time is to specific individuals. Or maybe we might learn what time of day (or night) is best for us to respond to emails. The possible types of reports are limited only by what you can imagine: just don’t lose sight of what is interesting and worthwhile to people.

5. Display the score in a fun way
Far too often, we have interesting data, but it’s not displayed in a way that is compelling. In this discussion of numbers and data, it’s easy to lose site of the fact that we are emotional beings; there’s a growing body of research exploring how our affect governs everything from decision making to memory. Make the time to look at the what you are revealing and determine if there is a more compelling or emotional way to present that information. Dopplr chose to represent “personal velocity” (distance traveled in a year) not as a number, but as animal that moves at approximately the same velocity. What if credit scores where represented as a hot air balloon? Or a measure of collaboration might be represented as a bee hive? Get creative with how you represent the data– our brains will thank you for that with extra attention.

6. Create Rules to Translate Data into Helpful Information
While cumulative scores and fun representations are somewhat useful, think about how you can turn specific activity patterns into helpful tips. This can be a tedious process of defining the rules and correlating messages, but the resulting personalized tips can be quite helpful:

“Ouch! You only responded to 38% of your emails in a timely fashion. This may be due to your lengthy (avg 17.4 sentences) replies. For next month, focus on shorter responses in a shorter timeframe.”

If our “score” hinted at a story, the story is explained in this text.

7. Set Challenges
Competing with oneself is a powerful motivator– if you provide something to compete against. This can be a best “winning streak,” a “top score,” the allure of “the next level” of mastery– the possibilities are endless. A boring game is one that doesn’t offer me ever increasing challenges. While mastery of email may be a challenge for some, up the ante for those who are at 100%. Decrease the time allowed to respond to incoming emails or introducing new barriers– you can no longer check emails as frequently as you did.

One interesting note here, while many games are built on a system that encourages you to “level up” as you increase experience (think Karate belts and most videogames, etc.), this assumes a beginner level. In business contexts I’ve found the analogy of a “credit score” to be more often the case; that is, you want to maintain the highest level possible, which you may or may not have been when the “game” began.

8. Add social cues
While competing against your own best score is a powerful motivator, social cues are much more powerful. “How do I compare to my peers?” What’s an “avalanche” for other people? 30 emails? 500 emails? How does their situation compare to mine and are they any better?

Imagine disclosing your “email ninja” score with others (and likewise). While there has been some heated debate about the use and abuse of leaderboards, we do like to know how we’re performing relative to other friends who are also “playing the game.” In a somewhat quantified way (or maybe something more playful, like Dopplr’s personal velocity), you could discover those folks in a similar situation to you who seem to have their act together. Maybe a “privilege” of the game is earning the status to share a tip or two with others in your “game of email” network.

9. Have fun. Make it interesting
This is a catch all for all the other fun things we haven’t even discussed! Think about pleasant surprises. Or ways to create scarcity (Attent™ with Serios™ has introduced scarcity by creating a virtual economy where you earn and spend points to increase the importance of an outbound email). In a previous article, I discussed how curiosity can motivate people to action– how could we arouse some curiosity here? What about earning privileges, such as new features or the customization opportunities that tap into our desire for self-expression. What about exchanging virtual gifts? What about injecting some humorous language…

Closing

We could go on specifying the details of The Game of Email. But you get the idea. We’re introducing feedback loops that tell me — in objective terms — how I’m performing. Not just at periodic intervals, but along the way with tight feedback loops that indicate how I’m doing now, so I can adjust and change course.

The rules are up to us. The game can be personal or social. We can layer on tons of other game mechanics (challenges, levels, variable rewards, prizes and what have you). But underneath it all, there’s a system offering me reflection on my behaviors.

Could business applications benefit from this kind of thinking? Would these numbers change anything? It’s a nudge in the right direction.

Paola Antonelli is the design curator at the New York Museum of Modern Art and a leading voice in the power of design, shown most recently in her acclaimed 2008 exhibition Design for the Elastic Mind. Antonelli talked to us about how her process for creating an exhibition, the future of design, and how we make people and objects more elastic.

You have organized a lot of succesful exhibitions at MoMA. What is your approach when setting up a new exhibition?

Paola Antonelli

My passion is contemporary design; to look at how people live today and understand from that what’s going to happen the day after tomorrow. I never do science fiction movies, but I like to give some idea of the way we are going to live maybe in two to three years from now.

In order to do so first of all, a theme comes to mind, an idea. An idea is a dollar a pound, and it depends on which one you decide to develop that really makes it worthy of talking about. Let’s say you decide to develop a certain idea, you start to look for examples in the world of design all around the world that supports this idea. Now, when I say the world of design it doesn’t mean just the bona fide designers that get published in magazines. Sometimes it’s products that are already on the market that don’t really have a name attached. But, you know everything that is built is a form of design, so there is a lot to look at. I usually gather a lot of different material and begin to sculpt the exhibit, I usually start with too much and as you really prepare the exhibition certain objects get abandoned and others come to the surface. It’s a process, it really is. In the end it all comes together, but it never is completely finished. When it comes to contemporary design it is best to leave the exhibition slightly unfinished to let the public finish it itself.

When it comes to contemporary design it is best to leave the exhibition slightly unfinished to let the public finish it itself.

One of the strong points of MoMA is the ability to ‘experience’ an exhibition digitally. How far do you want to go with this? How far will this go in relationship to the physical exhibition?

I started the museum website in 1995, because my very first short MoMA was a show about new materials about design. I figured it would be good to have a website. So ever since, I’ve had websites for every show I’ve done. I consider the website a place to archive everything, every website has all the materials and an explanation of all the objects in the show. Progressively it has becomes a place for an experience, and I feel the experience should be different than the show itself.

I don’t see the website as a surrogate or a substitute to the show itself, but rather a space all on to its own. For every show there are three main spaces, one is the gallery space, another is the catalog if you do it, and a third is the website. Each one responds to different laws, and they lead you to different experiences. The website for ‘Design and the Elastic Mind‘ was truly an experience, one that you would either love or hate.  It was completely in Flash – Yugo Nakamura, who is considered to be one of the kings of Flash, was the creative director – and required you to really float around on and explore to experience it in full. It had a personality that was very distinct. It had nothing really to do with the show, even though it contained the same objects though they were organized for the space of the website.

Right now the limit to what can be done on the web is the software. The limits are the crashes and the speed download. So much that we can do more without, I don’t believe in doing virtual galleries. That’s a bad use of the medium. So much is imperfect. We have all tried to do exhibitions on SecondLife, but I’m sorry, it was terrible.

When setting up a new exhibition, how do you try and capture the attention of the audience? How do you lure people into the exhibition?

Design and the Elastic Mind

I don’t know. It kind of comes naturally. There needs to be a good balance, of course you want to convey a certain idea and you hope that the idea will push the whole world a little further and forward. But, at the same time you need to do it with some grace without being too pandering and too heavy. So there are always a little sense of humor in certain objects, some lightness every now and then, even when you have a serious message to convey. Then there is also the idea that you want to show that design is a very creative discipline and that there is playfulness in it and talent, but there is also a lot of thinking and reasoning. And, more than anything, there is a lot of thinking about human beings.

However, people usually like it better when it’s not that abstract, where their lives are not at stake. So one of the best ways to make the exhibition engaging for people is to make them understand that it is about people.  What designs do is they really focus on people’s lives, even when they use the most advanced of technologies. They are the ones that guarantee that these devices actually work for people. It’s a mixture of that and the overall design of the space, ensuring its attractiveness, and the choice of objects. I always compare curators, especially curators at MoMA, to movie directors. It’s as if I was the director and MoMA was the studio. Each director has their own personality. It really has to do with the philosophy of displaying and the philosophy of exhibiting.

You see a lot of new forms of design popping up, like ‘critical design’ and ‘green design’. What new form of design appeals to you the most?

“Design for the Elastic Mind” was all about new forms of design. But, the type of design that I’m really interested in is all of them. I love the way designers work with scientists, biomimicry, and nanodesign. I love tissue design, behavioral design, and I’m interested in social design depending on how it’s done. I’m very passionate about informational design and visualization, I think it is one of the biggest avenues for designers in the future. In a way, I’m interested in any form of design that doesn’t start with an object but rather starts with reasoning. A reasoning about how people live and how they could live better in the future.

What, for the coming decade, will be an important influence/change for the way we approach design?

I think more and more it will be not about objects, but rather about other things. Or at least the objects will be in the computer screen. I think the designer that are going to survive are the ones that have studied how to make chairs, but are more interested in experiences, interaction, and interfaces. The next show that I’m working on is about this, called “Talk to Me.” It’s about the communication between people and objects. I really believe that’s what’s going to happen the most.

I also feel that designers will start to be employed more in policy making, and sociology and ethnography. Their knowledge of how people think and behave will be exploited better.

Over the last decade, which product has made the most impact on you and why?

The iPod, which then became the iPhone, really it’s the whole i-suite. I use a BlackBerry personally, but any kind of portable communication device that supports both text and email has revolutionized our life the most.

How do you see the balance between input from users and the brilliance of designers when designing new products?

It depends on the product, because every product requires a different balance. There are some products that are all about how people want them to be: these tend to be open source. There are others where people want the hand, or mind, of designer. They want the signature. It’s becoming more and more thinking before doing, and understanding where the object sits. Let’s say you want to buy a Cabana chair for $10,000, you don’t want your input in it. You want it to be their input only. Instead, you want to customize your Firefox, you want to customize it all by yourself. Your input is in the parts you decide to assemble and all the plugins that you want. So you see, there is a big difference between the functionality and symbolism of the object.

In an article you once wrote that “the figure of the designer is changing from form giver to fundamental interpreter of an extraordinary dynamic reality”. What did you mean by this?

What’s happening is that designers used to be those that made chairs, or those that made posters. Instead, right now they look at the way people live and they try to translate their observations into better products, better interfaces. Objects that are better, more flexible, more adaptable, and more elegant artifacts that we can surround ourselves with. Since people are changing everyday faster, and what’s happened in the past decade is the rate of change has become more rapid, what designers have to do is first and foremost be like anthropologists, or ethnographers. They have to observe how things happen and interpret them as fast as possible in a smart way.

What designers have to do is first and foremost be like anthropologists … observe how things happen and interpret them as fast as possible in a smart way.

In the same article you wrote this beautiful sentence “If design is to help enable us to live to the fullest while taking advantage of all the possibilities provided by contemporary technology, designers need to make both people and objects perfectly elastic” How do you make people more elastic?

People might become more elastic before you make them. But, it’s a matter of open-mindedness and getting people to accept change. The reason people call innovation distributive is because when it’s imposed upon society by the people creating it, they don’t give a damn about the people. They don’t care about the consequences of the innovation, rather they just pass on the innovation to society. Designers try to ensure that innovations are able to be used by people and it speaks the language that the people are familiar with. This is how you make objects more elastic, how you make people more elastic is by making them more comfortable with change as it happens. It’s not a one way street, both people and objects need to have better interfaces.

Interaction 10

If you want to meet Paola Antonelli in real life: she is one of the keynote speakers at Interaction 10. It is the third annual conference hosted by the Interaction Design Association (IxDA). Each year, IxDA aims to gather the interaction design community to connect, educate, and inspire each other. This year it is held in Savannah, Georgia (USA).

The Johnnies have asked me to write a monthly column about culture and concerns as they relate to cross-border user experience (UX), in Europe and beyond. This is an honour for someone born in Texas, USA (me) but probably seems odd to most everyone else (you). Let me share some background.

My father was Austrian. My mother’s family was German. The “Old World” wasn’t just a place in the memory of an aging grandparent and we certainly didn’t worship our ethnicity (as third- and fourth-generation Americans are apt to do). We travelled extensively every year (Rome and Florence were almost always on the itinerary). After university, I moved to Denmark to become a director at the Danish Royal Theatre and have remained in Copenhagen for 33 years. Here, I feel I’ve closed a cultural circle. Although our family tree has been pruned considerably, I’ve made sure the Reisses weren’t chased out of Europe forever. The Nazis have finally and definitively lost.

(Curiously, my father knew that he would never be returning to Vienna when the SS literally kicked him down the stairs of his gymnasium in March, 1938. Yet I have known since preschool that I was somehow destined to return.)

So what are you, Eric?

A New Yorker

Well, my work ethic is clearly Central European (I focus on getting the job done). My politics are decidedly Scandinavian (socialized and empathetic). But I also believe in the American Dream (bootstraps and the rewards of hard work). My temper is Latin (no idea where that came from). And as a Texan, I cherish cultural identity but reluctantly accept that I am part of something larger. (In comparison, New Yorkers don’t really acknowledge the rest of the world. The Steinberg cover for the March 29, 1976 edition of the New Yorker sums this up admirably:

As to language, I sometimes feel like the crazy monk, Salvatore, in Umberto Eco’s Name of the Rose. Salvatore speaks “all languages and none”. Returning from Geneva recently, I realized I’d muddled through in seven languages that day: French to pay the hotel and manage my airport check-in, Danish and Swedish to the SAS flight crew, German to my seatmate on the plane, English to an inarticulate taxi-driver of uncertain nationality, plus greetings to two of my neighbors – diplomats from Egypt (Sabaa’h el kheer) and Serbia (Dobro jutro).

So much for the long-winded introduction. I hope you’ll follow my cultural journey. And I hope I can justify the faith placed in me by the Johnny Holland editors.

Note: I tend to say “we” and “our” about Americans, Europeans, Texans, Danes, Germans, Austrians, Chicagoans, and eyeglass-wearers. Please forgive and bear with me.

What is “Europe”?

Listen to CNN and you’ll probably conclude that Americans think the European Community is a funny-accented version of the United States (and 33 years of empirical observation on my part suggests that this is exactly how they think). But we (Europeans) know this analogy only serves to make “Europe” easier to understand to folks who aren’t terribly interested in understanding us to begin with. I guess we shouldn’t really care, but hey – North Americans have their own “defining the damned thing” debate. We might as well have ours.

Let’s face it, “Europe” exists on a map, but nowhere else that I know of. Honestly, when are we actually “European”? – except when we’re forced into a convenient stereotype by another geographic group (Americans and Aussies, for example). Otherwise, we’re Danes and Poles and French and Italians and Greeks and Germans and Dutch and Belgians and Romanians and Brits (and you Brits really are a case unto yourselves – and irritatingly proud of it. The rest of us haven’t yet figured out how to tease you into submission but we’re working on it). How many nations are there in “Europe”? I can argue for about 40. (Or 400. Or even 4,000.)

Within each nation, there are incredible regional differences – a Dane from Himmerland sees the world differently than a Dane from Djursland. A Swede from Halland is different from one from Blekinge. Is Galacia part of Poland, the Ukraine, Austria – or Spain? In Zagreb, Croatia, they’ll tell you “The Balkans start on the other side of the river”. Dalmatia and Istra are Balkan; Slavonia is not. Most folks have never heard of these places. But that’s what makes Europe so exciting, right?

Granularity, European style

The most amusing case-in-point is that of the “Swiss” – you don’t really exist at all, do you? There are French, German, and Italian “Swiss” – but you stick together mostly for the sake of economic expediency, not because you like each other very much. And let’s not stop there – you further divide Switzerland into 23 states or “cantons”. And the individual cantons don’t like each other very much either. Now, these cantons also have cities – and here’s the punchline – in the city of Chur, there’s an old joke: “There are three qualifications for becoming Bishop of Chur: 1) you must be Roman Catholic, 2) your must be a consecrated priest, and 3) you must be a native of Chur (or at least from Kanton Graubünden). But in truth, the first two requirements can be dispensed with.”

The joke is, it’s not a joke!

The rest of the world wants us to act like a homogeneous group. But basically, none of us “Europeans” really and truly want to assimilate (you Swiss are just more up-front about it). Let’s face it, the more our nation-states become part of some larger global alliance, the more we cultivate our ethnic and geographical roots. In fact, this could be our common denominator. We are a group united by geography and mutual distrust – which is the surprising basis for many successful collaborations. We’ll put up with a fair amount of cultural diversity – as long as it doesn’t get in the way of our personal or national interests.

Don’t talk about the [war/food]

Our granular identity shows up in the oddest places. For example, here’s a direct transcript of a conversation between Northern Italians at an IT conference I attended a couple of years back:

Man from Piemonte: “My mother makes the world’s best Bagna Cauda.”
Man from Veneto: “Ahh. But but does she use Bianco Veneto?”
Man from Lombardia: “Well in Milan …”
Piemonte and Veneto in unison: “Shut up. You know nothing about garlic!”

Our politicians think that if they change the labelling enough, they’ll eventually describe the product correctly. Sorry, this is a tactic doomed to failure. Happily, no one cares very much. Throughout my years in Denmark, I’ve seen the political community move from (and to):

- The Common Market (CM)
- The European Economic Community (EEC)
- The European Community (EC)
- The European Union (EU)

Ahh…progress. Thank goodness for “search and replace”.

Anyway, let’s explore “Europe” (whatever that is) and examine how our user experiences play out across historical borders that represent more than just arbitrary lines on a map (hey, North Americans, look at all the razor-straight lines on your map. Then look at our map. This is why Nebraska and Bulgaria can never be equated).

Thanks for reading this far. Now tell me what your thoughts are.

There are so many interesting UX books coming out that it’s hard to know which ones are worth your money. So from now on we will try and be your guide. Each month we will share with you our opinion on the newest UX books. And as a bonus we will add a classic you must have.

This month we review Card Sorting, Designing Social Interfaces, Thoughts on Interaction Design, and revisit The Inmates Are Running The Asylum.

Card Sorting

Type: practical
Authors: Donna Spencer
Publishers: Rosenfeld Media
Details: 160 pages, paperback

With this book you can learn card sorting in a few days.

Card sorting is a method for finding patterns about how people categorise content and functionality on a website. In Spencer’s book she sets out to explain how you can successfully apply this inexpensive research method. And she did a good job at this. The book is a handy guide for anybody who wants to do card sorting, ranging from beginners to people who want to do it the proper way.

Spencer splits up card sorting into two variations: open and closed card sorting. In open card sorting participants are given cards which they have to group any way they think best. This version is very useful for creating structures for new and existing websites. Closed card sorting means participants are given cards which they have to sort in pre-defined groups. This version is useful when working with new content in an existing structure. In the book she takes you through every step to make both types of card sorting work.

If I had to name one thing I would have liked to see different in this book, it would have been the focus. Right now it presents itself as the definitive guide to card sorting, but all the examples, cases, and text focus on websites and intranets. It would have been more interesting to see how card sorting can be applied in a wider UX context.

But what I like about the book is that it’s honest and practical. Card sorting isn’t presented as the holy grail in user research, but as an interesting and useful part of it. Spencer notes that if you want to do proper research you have to also use other techniques alongside this one.

Designing Social Interfaces

Type: practical
Authors: Christian Crumlish & Erin Malone
Publishers: O’Reilly
Details: 478 pages, paperback

A practical guide for anybody who is working on social interfaces.

Are you currently working on a social media project? O’Reilly have once again published a trustworthy book full of principles, patterns and best practices. You can save yourself a lot of time on coming up with ways to make it a social environment that works, as long as you are willing to follow the patterns.

The book has been divided into five parts. Each one is a collection of principles, patterns and best practices. These aren’t pre-defined categories, but overlapping themes:

1. What Are Social Patterns?: introduction;
2. I Am Somebody: focusing on the notion of self, my online identity;
3. Objects of My Desire: about the type of activity you want to encourage;
4. A Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood: focusing on the social network, shared activities and interest;
5. But Wait… There’s More!: creating an open experience.

The format makes it a wonderful resource you can grab when facing a specific challenge. And I am not just saying this because I think so, but because I actually used it. In the past I’ve bought quite a few practical books that never gave me the answers I needed.

Thoughts on Interaction Design

Type: theory
Authors: Jon Kolko
Publishers: Morgan Kaufmann
Details: 2nd edition, 155 pages, paperback

Understand the story behind our profession on an academic level, but with an accessible tone.

In 2007 Jon Kolko self-published ‘Thoughts On Interaction Design’. These 1,000 copies, now known as ‘The Green Books’, have become treasured items. Fortunately Morgan Kaufmann decided to republish the book (with a blue cover) so that every interaction designer has access to this thought provoking material.

In ‘Thoughts on Interaction Design’ Kolko and several other authors explain to the reader what interaction design is all about. They dive into the history of interaction design and its relationship to engineering and design. In an almost academic, but also realistic way they explain what we do (or should do), how and why. Even though there are several books that have attempted this, Thoughts on Interaction Design is the first that explains it in a way that sticks – it not only makes me proud as an interaction designer, but also gives me knowledge to apply in a discussion.

To give you a feeling of the writing style, here is a sample from the book’s website,

Interaction designers are trained to observe humanity and to balance complicated ideas, and are used to thinking in opposites: large and small, conceptual and pragmatic, human and technical. This is not a jack of all trades. Instead, it is a shaper of behaviour. Behaviour is a large idea, and may, at first blush, seem too large to warrant a single profession. But a profession has emerged nonetheless. This professional category includes the complexity of information architecture, the anthropologic desire to understand humanity, the altruistic nature of usability engineering, and the creation of dialogue.

A must have for every interaction designer.

UX Classic: The Inmates Are Running the Asylum

Type: Methods
Authors: Alan Cooper
Publishers: Sams
Details: 288 pages
Published: 1999

See where personas started – and why we needed them in the first place

Love ‘em or hate ‘em, if you’re in interaction design you know about personas. The technique burst onto the scene in Alan Cooper’s 1998 book ‘The Inmates Are Running the Asylum’.

It’s perhaps fitting that a technique that has generated so much debate is found in a equally provocative book. Cooper spends much of  ‘Inmates’ setting up what’s wrong with current products and IT culture, mixed in with a few of his own software exploits for good measure. Luckily he a gift for clear, engaging prose and memorable catchphrases such as “dancing-bearware” (it’s not that it dances/functions well, it’s that it does it at all), “software apologists”, and (my favourite) “programmers act like jocks”. Yes, it can be over-the-top, but you can’t accuse Cooper of lack of passion.

Interesting with a decade of hindsight is Cooper’s horror stories of ’90s Silicon Valley projects. He documents bad products (VCRs, ATMs), Microsoft team battles, and a Job-less Apple scraping by on the power of its brand.

Still, while this is all great, its all a lead-up to Cooper’s tour de force: personas. Developed as “a precise description of our user and what he wishes to accomplish” (p123), Cooper goes through in detail their purpose and how they’re made (for the record, he is emphatic that they’re based on research and they they’re “discovered” rather than “made”). His case study of Sony Trans Com’s P@ssport IFE still holds up today in both demonstrating the process and the final product (the other studies have dated more). How would “Clevis McCloud, crotchety [but spry] septegenarian … slightly embarrassed about the touch of arthritis in his hands” (p126) use your product?

“The Inmates Are Running the Asylum” is worth buying even for the twenty or so pages on personas – it’s not only the first example of it, but still probably the best. Beyond that, it’s a great reminder on what can go wrong in IT. The day all of the examples are irrelevant will be a happy one for interaction designers indeed.

Buy UX Books

There are many interaction designers like myself whose growth into the field was a feat of organic if not chaotic chance. Our community of practice was born out of the convergence of people who did not have the option to be formerly trained in interaction design in almost any way what-so-ever. So we educated ourselves – sometimes alone and sometimes with the support of peers and mentors. It is a common presumption that because we did it this way we have to somehow hold out a universe where that path continues to not just be an option, but to be a viable one; and one that we even laud over other more formal ones.

I believe that there has been a huge paradigm shift in the very nature of design practice and a growing shift in its education. If we do not acknowledge this shift at the core of education and career development we are doing a disservice to those who are interested in coming up the ranks as young interaction designers today. At the core of these issues is the belief in the separation between form and interaction. This myth can no longer be maintained – definitely not in education.

We can look at a definition of Interaction Design like this one by Robert Reimann: “a design discipline dedicated to defining the behavior of artifacts, environments, and systems (i.e., products)”. Therefore it is concerned with “anticipating how use of products will mediate human relationships and affect human understanding”. It is easy for us to stop there. But what is also true is that all interaction design is embedded in form (even those areas of IxD like gesture). And it is my belief that interaction design lives in these areas of communicating possibilities for action and responses to actions, surrounded by forms.

Core understandings

I have often held the ground that our discipline has a place next to other design disciplines like graphic design and industrial design in the area of practice.  We have done well as an emerging user experience culture and community to do just that along with usability testing, design research and information architecture (to name the most prominent). Due to the ways they built up UX teams this model seems to be working for many organizations. However, I would challenge that to have “design” separate from “user experience” – as many creative agencies have done; or having “user experience” be the name or structure of your “design organization” – does neither scenario any long term use and this is the basis of this article.

one of the core understandings behind IxD and even UX as a whole is to design from the point of view of the human being(s) who’s lives we want to impact through our designs

If we are to understand that one of the core understandings behind IxD and even UX as a whole is to design from the point of view of the human being(s) whose lives we want to impact through our designs, then we must also agree that it is the tone of our voice – the expression of our products & services through the various mediums that make that up – that is our ultimate tool. Thus, any true practice of design with a human focus has to be built on a foundation of traditional design that focuses on the the craft & design of perceptual mediums using methods & practices of design from the root of art over science.

Human-centered education

As a professor of interaction design at the undergraduate level, I truly believe that an education in human-centeredness is a requirement of EVERY designer, regardless of medium of interest. Each medium would have its own distinct way of looking at how to integrate the philosophy and methods of practice to work from a human-centered perspective. As I look at my courses in interaction design that I teach for our undergraduate minor, I am always stuck on either of two sides of a problem: I either need students who already know the rules and tools of interactivity; and/or I need students who are experienced in prototyping 3D forms & functions.

Since a minor is supposed to be open to all students throughout my college (SCAD.edu), it is hard for me to really cross departments effectively and efficiently. Despite this problem – which I’m working on fixing in future iterations of the curriculum coming soon – I think that the addition of an interaction design concentration is the right direction for undergraduate level education. This allows enough lower level support courses to be available to primary form-giving design programs whilst giving the opportunity to those students who wish greater depth of understanding of the particulars of interaction design. But what is ultimately true is that it is impossible to teach IxD without virtual interactivity, which means that there is always an addition to every non-graphical medium. All designers need to learn 2D interactive prototyping.

I truly believe that an education in human-centeredness is a requirement of EVERY designer regardless of medium of interest.

Growth path

This issue isn’t just related to undergraduate education, but also about early professional practice. Here is where the real controversy kicker is going to come in. Anyone with less than five years experience under their belt should not be working in a purely UX capacity. By “purely” I mean doing structural and behavioral design without also directly owning the forms within which they are embedded. What’s worse is that many organizations will not even hire entry-level designers, thus sidestepping this part of the growth path.

If I were starting out today here is what I would do:

1. Find out which design medium I like the most: interactive, industrial, architectural, graphic, interior, fashion, etc.;
2. Find a school that teaches courses in the medium I like and has either separate UX support (electives) minimally, but ideally has concentrations in UX generally & IxD specifically;
3. Intern at trans- or converged design organizations (hard to find but they exist);
4. Find a job at the same type of organization, but different.

But it doesn’t end there, right? What happens then? What happens after my fifth year? Where do I go? What do I become?

Paths to take

To be honest, there are so many variables that the options are infinite in their paths and combination. Along the way create a relationship with good mentors (don’t just ask for one, build one). However, there is a path I could recommend.

The path I’m speaking of is within Interaction Design or the similar path of Service Design (no one has still convinced me these are different and I’m looking forward to two talks at Interaction 10 to see if they can do the job). In other design disciplines there are often specializations that pop up. The clearest examples for me come out of graphic design. Not every graphic designer becomes a typographer or iconographer, but there are a few people who specialize in those areas. I see interaction design the same way. Only a few people will ever need to have this level of specification in their careers, or become educators who need the depth of understanding to teach at any level or to produce new bodies of knowledge.

Most people will continue their careers and learn enough depth in interaction design or any UX discipline through practice and professional education opportunities. Only a select few will make the leap to thought and practice leaders that requires the level of mastery and creation of “new thought” that a good Masters program should provide.

The reality is that an interaction designer without chops in form, is at best a strategist or manager.

There are other options, though, in this continuing “decade of transition” as I see the previous five years and the next five years. Certificate programs like that at Boulder Design Works could be (depending on the results, which we haven’t seen yet) one type of path for those needing some graduate level depth; transition skills education; and who are interested in media and messaging. Other programs could be similarly developed around other markets or practice types.

Reaching out

The reality is that an interaction designer without chops in form, is at best a strategist or manager and really doesn’t design (i.e. build) anything that anyone will ever understand as tangible enough to hold long term value through an ever collapsing economy. The cerebral nature of our tasks with lack of tactical results are not just merely easy targets for redaction, but also hold less value empirically: unless they are bound within forms. Yes, we can collaborate with form givers, but the tasks are not as separable as say writer and illustrator for either comics or children books. Both produce tangible outcomes that fit mental models of business and consumers. Our role does not. So we need to reach out not for collaboration, but for skills and practice with the areas in which we want to work.

Over roughly the last 10 years, China and India have given way to a huge rise in technology outsourcing. Jobs are outsourced from companies like Microsoft, Google, T-Mobile, Honeywell, and many others. In Microsoft I’ve worked with teams in both India and China developing software for a variety of uses. Having our headquarters in the US, I usually work with small satellite teams in these countries. I couldn’t help but wonder why these countries who had become huge in the area of software technology, struggled so much in the area of user experience and UI innovation.Note: this article refers specifically to software UX. Both of these countries have very innovative and creative aspects in other areas of their culture, and I’m not expressing these comments as blanket statements.

Specifically I noted a series of different challenges with each team. For example the team in India has appeared weaker in developing the details in their work. While they grasp large issues, nuances often have to be explained in painstaking detail, which more or less involves giving all the specifics of those nuances.

Justin Maguire, a Creative Director as Frog has dubbed this the 70/30 effect. The first 70% of the process around big and broad thinking is great, but the last 30% of the details is like squeezing blood from a rock. Even with these explained down to “dotting the i‘s and crossing the t’s” we often found ourselves coming up short in the last 30%.

The China team has several similar shades, but in a slightly different flavor. While the nuances we needed often had to be detailed out in exact specifications, China seemed to be great about copying those details in an amazing and precise method. The last 30% was pristine when given all the specifics. When design specifics were enumerated out, the team could carry through the task with a level of detail rarely seen. This was especially apparent in visual UI work. Conversely the initial 70%, or big thinking, was slightly rougher to achieve. Two countries, both huge in technology, with somewhat opposing problems. This became my curious head scratcher, and I wanted to learn more.

Given the issues and connections I was seeing, I decided to go straight to the source and start to ask the offices I had worked with, as well as other designers I found through my various networks about these issues. These are just the initial thoughts I’ve started to gather. I plan to interview many more people with what I’ve deemed my curiosity research project, but thought it would be interesting to share a few of the insights I’ve gathered thus far to give a view to others who work with these countries. Given the format of Johnny Holland, I’ve kept these short, but often there are great (and sometimes very amusing) stories behind each point.

India

In interviewing people thus far there have been three points that have so far come forward

1. The “Does it work?” principle: This appears to be the strongest rationale the attributes to the lack of detail I discuss above. In talking with designers in India they stressed that with Indian culture, given their daily life, the details are often a luxury. For example, in the morning they must think of how to get work, making food, washing clothes, getting fresh water, and taking kids to school among other things. Simply from a cultural and living conditions standpoint there is a strong focus on getting by. Details are a luxury that many don’t have in this society. Europe and America have the basics taken care of, which allows them to culturally focus on the details of what a water bottle looks like, having a specific cut to jeans, or separate forks for salad, soup, and cereal.
2. Schools have become a common thread in most of my interviews. For the most part I’ve only found three schools named when discussing design and user experience specifically, with the National Institute of Design (NID) being the top. This school was more of less started by C&R Eames during their work with the Indian government. Secondarily within schools that exist for teaching design, there appears to be a lack of process and design thinking, with a stronger weight on the final product. This type of oversight may account for the lack of innovative software UX. In the end, there just isn’t a strong student community or education around design, which would then carry into the workforce culture.
3. As a last and very logical point, we just haven’t used India as a country to outsource software and technology design experiences, so there has been no reason for them to exercise that muscle, as a result, it’s never been grown. The corollary I was presented with when talking with a designer in India was to think of UX in the US around the 1980’s. It was there, but just barely. It had just started to be cultivated as a solid field.

In the end, we’re asking India to apply Western techniques that have been developed from specific cultural surroundings but have never been part of daily life in their culture. While we tend to overlook it, when I hear people talk about it, it’s almost a “duh, how did I miss that” moment. To be reminded of this, has certainly been an eye opener.

China

With China I’ve been able to get to less people, but found these two points of interest.

1. Waiting for commands/chain of command/questioning commands. I’ve seen this in several Asian countries, so it’s not without expectation that China has the same issue. Chain of command and management plays a very strong role in corporations. When you’re handed a command from your manager, you are attentive to that command, and you are more or less at the mercy of your superior in a way. In addition, decisions made by superiors are often less questioned. This means less room for rigorous debate of ideas or pushing back on potential bad decisions. Often with the UX field, the debate can make or break a product. It gives way to new ideas and innovation. Without that, it’s somewhat expected that products may not be as innovative and strong as they could be. If your ultimate goal is to please your manager, it’s easy to see how the details can play a big factor. Ideas and principles are hard to measure, but the physical details are much easier, making a UX culture ripe for lack of conceptual play, and tight on measurable specifics. With the focus on details, can often come a lack of being able to see the 10,000 foot view, playing into the idea of the last 30% is strong, whereas the broad 70% can be a struggle.
2. Second, I’ve found in my discussions, success is often achieved from mastering old techniques. For example, calligraphy is mastered successfully from studying old masters, but there isn’t high praise given to striking out your own path and finding new innovative ways to approach the discipline. Therefore, the desire is to achieve parody of something, not strike out to create something new. With what I’ve seen working with various teams, this echoes true for me. The ability to create great work from a detailed system is amazing, but to blaze new trails is a long, difficult, and tough road.

I’ve discovered a wealth of cultural information from these discussions and as I mentioned, these few points are just the start and the most interesting I’ve found. I’m not exactly clear what my desired outcome is, as this started as a simply curiosity issue, but I hope it’s also piqued others interest from reading this.

Global focus

If we really want to move towards a more global focus in our teams, and a better age of thinking and design, we must develop a strong appreciation and understanding of the other cultures we work with. It’s not a nicety, but a necessity. Especially if you manage teams across these countries. The rise of these two specific countries, with cultures so different from Europe and the US, points to a specific need to understand what drives them, and why they have developed into what they are. This understanding will help everyone in finding the path to greater partnerships.

These links may provide some additional thoughts for those interested

• Hans Rosling talking at TED about Asia’s rise
• Devdutt Pattanaik discusses east vs west; the myths that mystify
• Charles and Ray Eames on design for India

Do you feel I’m incorrect on these cultural statements? What to give your perspective? Are you part of the workforce in one of these countries mentioned or worked with them? Let me know and I’d love to set up some time to chat over the phone and continue collecting information.

It’s easy to believe them when clients ask us, designers, to make recommendations. We want to believe they love us for our wisdom, knowledge, and experience. They want our advice. And we love giving them advice. It makes us feel smart—like they finally “get” what we’re about. They want to do the right thing and we know how to help them. So, why is it bad to make design recommendations? They want it. We want it. Why shouldn’t we make the recommendations they’re asking us to give?

Simple: The recommendations don’t work. We end up looking bad. Clients lose faith in our skills. And the design doesn’t get better. Interestingly, in our research, the best teams don’t use recommendations. Instead they use an experimentation approach.

Patient, flexing his arm: “Doctor, doctor! It hurts when I do this.”
Doctor, checking the patient: “Hmmm. Well, I recommend you stop doing that.”

The Easy Out

Making recommendations is an easy out. You say, “Do this. Change that.” then wipe your hands clean of it. If they don’t do it, they’re obviously idiots. If they do, you’re brilliant. The best case scenario is they follow your great recommendation and it improves the design. But it turns out, that only one out of four possible outcomes.

What happens if they follow your recommendations and it doesn’t improve the design? What happens when they choose to not follow your recommendations and the design improves anyways? In either case, your future attempts to work with them becomes more difficult.

Changes cost resources. If the design doesn’t improve, then the organization has spent energy, money, and time on something that didn’t pay off. Are we considering that when we put the recommendations on the table?

Playing “Bet Your Salary”

UX Researcher Extraordinaire, Meghan Ede, has a rule of thumb she applies to her research team’s recommendations. The team members can only submit a recommendation if they’d be ready to put a full year’s salary down as a guarantee that the design will show improvement.

Would you be willing to do what Meghan does with your next set of recommendations? Go ahead: take out your checkbook. Write out a check for your take-home salary, after taxes. Pass it in with your recommendations, while telling them that, if the design doesn’t improve, they can cash the check. How confident are you feeling about those recommendations?

The Experimentation Approach

What our preliminary research has found is a typical recommendation looks something like this: “Users had trouble seeing the field labels. I recommend you put the label on the top of each field, instead of on the left.”

However, some teams are using a different approach: “We’re seeing that our users have trouble with the field labels. We’d like to try an experiment and see if moving the labels to the top of each field makes an improvement.”

It’s a subtle difference. And it was the approach we saw most in use amongst those UX professionals who had a solid track record of consistently improving their designs. These professionals told us they refuse to make recommendations, but love to experiment.

Discussing the Meaning of the Observations

I found the process from these high-performance teams quite interesting. It starts with a team discussion of the underlying observations and what it means. The team explores all the different interpretations. “Is it possible the users didn’t see the labels because they are too far away? If the font hard to read? Are the users not recognizing the terms? Were we measuring the wrong tasks?”

Then the team guides the conversation to other research that may fill in any holes, group discussion of alternatives, and measures to signal when the users’ behaviors change in the right direction. Often, this is followed by further research, then more discussion.

This process is very different from the recommendation approach, where the local UX expert makes a pass at the design and puts together a list of things that need changing. Instead of putting the onus on someone to come up with winning solutions, the entire team pushes the design into improvement, one experiment at a time. Some changes will work as intended, others won’t, but with each change the team learns something.

The result is that the entire team becomes better informed about the design they are building. No one person carries the burden of improving the design. Nobody has to be in the position of being all-knowing, always right. Changes are not seen as final, but as an ongoing process of improvement.

A Change in Mindset

Making the move away from recommendations is very hard. As I said, making recommendations is the easy way out, so it feels like the best path. But, in the long run, it’s a trap. The house odds are against you and eventually, it will all come crumbling down.

Both experience and research are telling us that experimentation, where constant changing and measuring gives the team guidance and insight, is the approach that leads to long-term success and better designs.

That’s my recommendation. I’m sticking with it.

How many times have you asked yourself why something was even designed in the first place? Or why some designs endure and others don’t? In this article the focus is one of the key dimensions of ‘sustainable design’: Durability.Note: from here on I will refer to “sustainable design” also as “good design” which can be defined as a well-thought out design that embraces an ethical and sustainable design philosophy. From a sustainability perspective, a design can be said to be durable when the product’s creation and its serviceable life span (a.k.a its performance) has absolve its Eco-impact. A simple and over used example relates to the cutting of trees to build homes. This would mean that the homes built from these cut trees would have to be built to last as long as it takes to replace the used trees.

Today

Just as we can measure whether or not a design is ‘usable’ or has a high ‘emotional appeal,’ we should begin to develop a framework to understand whether a design is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ in a sustainable sense.  Durability is a key dimension of what it means to be sustainable and therefore is seen as a contributor to the “goodness” of the design. Consequently, any definition of good design must transcend the traditional ‘eye of the beholder,” definition, which is based only on a subjective aesthetic meter and define a more objective definition of good design. But where does a good meter of good design come from? Do we base this on its adherence to fundamental sustainability principles?

As UX practitioners the challenge is a more complex than can be imagined. First, many of us lack the skills to judge if a product is good or bad; second, we often lack the buy-in and insight into the production process to contribute to the creation of good design. Third, we are creatures of the aesthetic realm and often our aesthetic instincts controls our view of design. However, as UX evolves we face the challenge of defining new frameworks, processes and guidelines that embrace a more comprehensive definition of good product design.

Today it is simply not enough to focus just on functionality and aesthetics. As stakeholders of design production, our goals should be aligned with the direction of global thinking. To date, there are a number of well-defined dimensions of ‘good’ design that has its roots in ‘green’ thinking and that have had tremendous global impact. Key of these are energy efficiency,  the other being packaging which combined have impacted the way we shop as well as the overall cost of things based on combined impact of growing transportation costs.

In line with meeting new global mandates, many innovative companies are going the distance to involve UX designers in initiatives to move the companies to meet legislated guidelines to meet new design standards. The dimension of Durability as part of the ‘good design’ checklist is therefore not far behind.

How can we determine whether our products are durable or not?

Many companies have dedicated departments that test both software and hardware to ensure that their products are well built. But by who’s standards? And is durability a key measure of what it means to be well – designed? Clearly by the number of bad products that seem to flood the market place the answer is mostly no!

This article is a step to open discussion on new guidelines and frameworks to advance the state of practice and assume a better strategic placement of UX as a key driver for better designed products. As one of the many principles of good design, durability stands front and foremost at the moment because it strikes a chord with many consumers in the current economic climate. Today, consumers are ever more focused on getting value for their money – translated into “making things last.”

The connection between hardware and durability is evident but some of you may be thinking how can something as intangible as IxD designs be durable? Any good principle applies across the board in its applicability. In the context of IxD it can be interpreted as a design that is of its time and can transcend its time by remaining relevant, functional and aesthetically pleasing – in other words classic and timeless all in one. For this article the focus is targeted mostly at the physical aspects of design as it is the aspect that is most tangible and apparent.

In more recent years as the end user becomes more product savvy, companies have a lot to fear. Today all it takes is a motivated and frustrated consumer with one bad product experience, a blog and a few followers. Case in point Dooce vs. Maytag, which illustrates the case of broken product experience, a savvy blogger and a well-followed Twitter site,  which brought Maytag to its knees. And while some tweet their disappointments others use  the old fashion grapevine which also has an effect. Recently while speaking with a small group of friends on the overall topic of consumer products, one friend, relayed her frustration about poor product quality as follows:

You think you have the newest model and you don’t. How would you feel if you just bought a new car – you drive off the lot and all of a sudden you have the last year’s model because the company just came out with a new one while you were shopping? Just makes you feel so jipped

She was referring to a product she had just purchased where an improved model was immediately released because of bad product quality.

I began thinking of the growing issues that so many users face with products that simply miss the durability mark where follow up products have to be built to fix the previous release issues. It is definitely a feeling that many of us have experienced at least one time or another.

Another friend recalled a time when there was one product release a year and products were so well-built that you could “pour acid” on it and it still worked. Today in the same market space there are sometime 4 and 5 releases of the same product with minor hardware and software modifications at the expense of high product churn rate because of poor quality.

What gives!

Why can’t companies change the focus to durability and quality over quantity of what can only be called “junk”?

Planned obsolescence

Sadly and seemingly unnoticed by consumers many companies practice what is less commonly known as “planned obsolescence” or “built-in obsolescence.” Planned obsolescence is the process of product becoming obsolete or non-functional after a certain period of time or use. Obviously the benefit is for the manufacturer and not the consumer as there is the pressure to purchase a newer version of that same old thing.

Think back at a product you recently purchase that should have lasted closer to 5 years but only lasted a year for whatever reason. For me it’s my Sony video camera I purchased in 2003, which lasted up till the warrantee expired a year later. Today,  it R.I.P, still gleaming new and useless in my basement because the hassle of getting the right person to solve my problem on the phone at Sony had become a full time job. The same goes for my Canon s400 camera, which only three month after purchase, displays an everlasting e18 error.  It has now joined my Sony camera in a neighboring grave site of other junk products I have purchased over the years. I reasoned for the near $350 I spent on the Canon point-and-shoot, it simply was not worth the repair. I now regret not taking the advice of my professional photographer friend who swears by Nikons. Perhaps thrice would have been the charm but I am now jaded.

While the case of Sony and Canon may or may not be intentional planned obsolescence, it speaks to the deplorable lack of overall quality of almost any piece of electronics you buy these days.

Junk is the new black, the new status quo in product design and manufacturing. It is a case of short sighted thinking and a complete violation of Sustainable design at its core. Unfortunately the pervasive practice of planned obsolescence makes it not matter where you purchase as you may find yourself buying the same product type very soon again.

Junk is the new black

What then is the role of UX practitioners in tackling the issue of planned obsolescence and enabling the design of products with increased longevity?

It is a tricky rope to toe as we have little ties in most cases to the day-to-day operations of product marketing and manufacturing. However, we do have an ‘in’. The kinds of feedback that we get from our users about product quality should have a voice. It is one thing to report satisfaction and efficiency ratings alongside affective data. Beyond that we should create the opportunity to direct  these often unsolicited user feedback about such aspects as quality, battery life and durability of hardware etc… all elements of ‘good design’ to the appropriate people who can make a difference?  I will go so far as to say it should be part of our protocol of product inquiry and be a standard usability component of our reports as we move forward. Some of the barriers that make this difficult is that we are not always fortunate to have continuous contact with our end users over the lifespan of the products – purchase to grave cycle to determine how we are doing along the continuum of product use. But what if we did?

These problems, left unaddressed, often makes headlines and ruins a company’s reputation even for a cycle. Lest we forget the energy sucking iPhone of recent times. Though iPhone bounced back it certainly ruined my image of the product as an energy guzzler.

Who also decides how long a product should last based on its value? Is it the user? Is it the manufacturer? Do their ideas on durability map? Highly likely not. The motivations are mutually exclusive – one to save money – one to make money. I will end this post by providing a few questions for thought:

1. Why can’t companies spend more time making good products?
2. How can we strike a balance and have better accountability for the continuous influx of crappy goods?
   Whatever happened to quality?
3. At what point will consumers begin to push back and demand better from companies filling the market place with poor quality goods.
4. Most importantly, for our field of practice, how do we benchmarks products overall UX considering durability as a necessary element alongside functionality and aesthetics?