The Interaction Designer is the shaper of behavior.
The notion of a dialogue implies we’re designing the thing between.
Marketing and Design are 90% the same entity but that 10% is so, so critical…Design Researchers and Designers try to understand culture where as a marketer will try and predict behavior.
The next big step is to tackle the giant societal problems that are facing us!
Today on Radio Johnny, Jeff Parks talks with Co-Editor-In-Chief of Interactions Magazine, and Associate Creative Director at frog design, Jon Kolko about his publication “Thoughts on Interaction Design”.
Jon shares a variety of ideas including the need to differentiate design research from market research; the importance of creating a balanced corporate culture; and how we as UX practitioners need to not lose sight of the elements of craft, execution, and appropriateness when working towards our ultimate goal of creating great experiences for our clients.
Jon will be attending Interactions ’10 where he’ll be welcoming feedback and discussion of ideas from his book.
A special thanks to Jeff’s sister Suzanne Lowry for providing transcripts for Radio Johnny! More on the way soon…
Jeff Parks: Jon Kolko, you recently published a book by Morgan Kaufmann, “Thoughts on interaction Design”. Now, my understanding this isn’t the first time that this book has been produced. Is that right?
: Ya, that’s right. Back in 2007 I was still teaching at the Savannah College of Art and Design and written this book as a way of formulating what was a number of different themes and things like that. I found myself continually teaching students and talking about and having beers and coffee and discussing without a good reference. And what I realized actually is that the stuff that I was talking about was by no means my own idea’s it was to a large degree, a lot of my material coming out of my education at Carnegie Melon, just reframed in the context of hard core product design which I found myself teaching instead.
So in 2007 I wrote it and shopped it around to some publishers, I had some interesting responses. And most of those lines were “Hey, we’d be happy to publish this but we don’t think that there’s an audience for it, so if you could make it pick your additive more abroad, or more specific or more about web, or less about web, so we’d be happy to consider it. I did think there was an audience for it, I still do, and it’s pretty evident that there is. So I self published it, which was a giant trial and error; I absolutely didn’t know what I was doing. But there it was, we printed it, (“we” being my wife and I.) we printed about a thousand of these suckers and sold them all in about eight or nine months.
Jeff Parks: Nice!
Jon Kolko: Ya it felt good, I had no reference, you know, is a thousand a lot ? Is it a little? Is it going to be really hard? I think for the most telling part was when Morgan Kaufmann prints how ever many copies, they never see like a thousand copies at once, but a thousand copies showed up at my house (Jeff Parks: laughing) with a truck and this giant fork lift. In boxes of forty four up and down the stairs we went. So anyway, and then I was pleased to have Morgan Kaufmann reprint it. It’s a great publisher, specifically related to this form of content of Mary Jane has been very, very helpful with pushing this forward.
Jeff Parks: Ya, and it’s great! I’ve read it over the last week, and it’s one of these books where it’s not like Steve Krug “Don’t make me think”, it’s not a book you can leaf threw. It’s a book that you can return to again and again, and always learn something new, (at least I’ve found.) Depending on the project that you are working on. Now, I don’t want to get into “defining the damn thing argument”, because well…you know, nobody cares but, I think it’s also important to provide a little bit of context.
In your book you state that “Interaction design is the dialogue between a person and a product, service or system or perhaps a simpler way of thinking about interaction designer, is that they are the shapers of behaviour. Having a background in cognitive and behavioural psych, I always found this really interesting; this notion that a lot of people talk about the user experience professionals but they don’t necessarily delve very deeply into the human psyche in terms of how people think and behave and how that subsequently impacts the way we design for other people. So, maybe you can expand on this notion of behaviour because that’s a very broad topic for any discipline trying to cover.
Jon Kolko: Ya, it is. So first I’ll reference Robert Feed from Savannah College of Art and Design with a creation of a dialogue statement. He was pretty fundamental in helping me and put together some of these thoughts. (Jeff Parks: okay) That the notion of a dialogue implies that we’re designing the thing between. In many cases that is our supertheorial way of describing something. I’m not designing the object that’s a product designer, I’m not designing the way it look maybe (laughs) that’s a visual designer and obviously I’m reducing these things tremendously and it’s a reductive way of thinking about it.
But when you abstract all these traditional formal designer way, what you’re left with is this idea of designing for behaviour or support the behaviour and then it manifests it’s self threw dialogue. Mostly threw monologue which is unfortunate, I think when we look at a lot of big companies mostly the fortune 500 but a lot of other companies produce and position their products, really in a.. “I’m talking at you” and telling you what to think and what to do and what to feel and by the way, I’m going to do it threw advertising too so I might even be shouting at you! Or using a visual equivalent of shouting threw my bright colours and new, improved, more features, things like that.
You can kind of compare that to the dialogue that you might have with something that has been passed down threw your family. Whether it’s something obvious as a stuffed animal, or something as mundane. I know a friend that has a straight razor that’s been passed down from generation to generation , you know three or four generations at this point.
And there is a sense of dialogue that he has with the object but also all of the generations and cultures that have touched it before, but I think is much more humane. And to your point about not getting into defining arguments, I think part of where I land on the argument about the defining argument is that the conversation is always good and that we should be always having the conversation of what is our roll? what is out job? and what is it that we do? It’s irritating when that’s all we have is the debate. And I think that’s when it’s called pedantic or academic, but I think practitioners have this debate more frequently. They’ll find that the things that they take for granted that maybe they aren’t making the best use out their time and resources, and that maybe just producing a stack of wire frames isn’t really my value and that I could offer something greater than that.
Jeff Parks: Right, and the way I communicate to clients and other people, is that all these things, what every you define yourself as, whether it’s an interaction designer, information architect, doesn’t really matter. Ultimately these tools are out to convey things to other people so, maybe you’re dealing with a corporate executive who only wants to see the high level details.Well then wire frames is good because you can promote those ideas.
All of these things we’ve been talking about ultimately we’re talking about a process, and throughout you’re book you talk about process. In particular you stated that simply put in process drives reducing the reliance on inspiration and creates a frame work in which creative professionals can execute. Going further, you know that engineers and developers who are sort of traditional long standing disciplines in these fields. They have little experience of: process, design, validate and deliver.
So why in your mind is this true? What can Interaction designer’s bring to the table to create credibility with in the eye’s and minds of these disciplines that we have to work with every day. And also bring value but it’s sort of that “Oh, how do I get by?” and how do I get these guys to see the bigger picture.
Jon Kolko: Ya, I’ve had two very different experiences with development. One you could paint broadly as working with corporate developers. And the other you could work broadly with consultant developers. And the first is absolutely characterized, the corporate, the large, is absolutely characterized by a lack of process and a lack of understanding an appreciation of it. Sweeping generalizations I’m sure this will piss off all the people that I’m talking about but, they sort of take the “fly by the seat of your pants” roll and when confronted with problems I’ve seen it turn very quickly into a “Well that’s hard and I don’t want to deal with it.” And I think there is a lot of compensation and structure there, where most of the companies that I’m talking about are CMO driven, and that engineering takes a back seat. It’s probably very, very different at a place like Microsoft. I haven’t had much experience at dealing with developer at somewhere like that, but they probably see it totally different.
On the other side of things, you look at the developing teams at a company like Frog; these guys are as creative or more than me, than any of the designers and are able to do pretty phenomenal and logical things, and not just talk about them but to show them. What I find that they’re lacking in is rigger and structured framework in which it lands in humanity. So given just a little, little tiny framework, theses guys are able to walk circles around, again me and the creative teams, simply because if you could find an empathetic developer they can do all human anthropological stuff and empathize and all that good stuff. And then on top of that, wow, they can actually make what’s in your head real. Where as maybe some of the creative teams are reliant on tools that just aren’t good at this stuff, like Photoshop or any of the 3D or even any of the 4D rendering tools. It’s kind of like pushing bricks up hill. Where as maybe some of the Native languages, if you kind find someone who can visualize this stuff in their head and oh ya by the way can open up java and start cranking stuff out. It’s pretty cool!
Jeff Parks: In addition to the developer and engineers, there’s sort of an over arching theme in your book that I found an unhappy relationship between marketing and designers, to put it mildly. Quoting from your book you says “On the surface Interaction design and marketing seem to have a great deal in common. Both fields are interested in human behaviour, both care about brand and presentation and understand the value of in human experience with products. The interpretation of gathered data, however, is dramatically different across disciplines. Can you elaborate on some of these differences? And why they exist.
Jon Kolko: Ya, absolutely. I think that’s probably the most fundamental point of all of my experience with writing and thinking about all this stuff is that marketing and design are a 90% the same entity. But that 10%man is so, so critical. So I think the biggest distinction that I see between marketing and design, is that marketing (I’m talking about market research, but also mean marketing as a whole.) They both focus on people, they are both quantitative and qualitative, they both borrow heavily on the social and behavioural signs but design research and designers attempt to understand culture, whereas marketing research tries to predict behaviour.
I think the distinction is one where a marketer will go “I need to avoid buy in I need to survey and I need to have predictability, to be the end result, so I need to talk to a thousand people and I need to randomly select them and I need to ask them things on a scale from 1-7.because when I’m done I’ll be definitively talk about my small sample how it relates to and predicts the larger population. I think most designers who are worth their salt will say “I want to talk to four people and I want to spend as much time with them as possible so I can understand them.” I want to celebrate what’s unique and strange and peculiar about them. And bias? Who gives a shit! I don’t care about bias it’s irrelevant, in fact sample size totally irrelevant for qualitative data for designers is not to be objective, it is to be rigorous. And then my job as a designer is to translate all that cultural understanding into something useful.
I‘m not about predictive I’m about making something new. And that something new is going to be a combination of what I see in the world but also what I am, what makes me, me.
Jeff Parks: Exactly! In fact, I actually asked one of the Kahunas over on Johnny Holland. I understand that you had dinner Steve Baty recently? (Jon: Yes!) I asked him to send me a couple questions that he thought we could chat about. One of them is related to what I think you were just describing with respect to experience. He noted that conversation saying today over dinner that you were talking about how it’s sort of conceit for designers to talk “about” designing experience, although you’re okay on the notion of designing “for” an experience. So can you elaborate on that distinction?
Jon Kolko: Yes, and I don’t know if I would put a hard fast rule on one being conceit and the other one being great. We really do getting into mincing words and things like that, but I think the general point that I’m trying to make and probably doing a poor job of articulating is that when we claim to be user experience designers, it really really feels like we’re taking a heroic aspect. And people can’t have that experience without us, God help them, their like minions at our disposal. And you know if it weren’t for me life would be so boring for them. And the reality for me I think the more and more I watch people and culture and muse about humanity, is that they’re doing just fine with out us! They are having experience left and right with our products without our products in ways we want them to the ways we don’t want them to.
Ultimately I think when we start thinking about there things, these grandiose experience we lose site of the subtleties of things like craft and execution and appropriateness and so it makes for a good presentation title to say that user experience design is a bunch of horse shit and so I’ve used that before so I’ve used that before but my actual intent a little bit more nuanced than that.
I love experiences, positive ones and I certainly love vivid ones. I also love in a weird way, melancholy ones that are subtle and I love ones that are completely natural and complicit. I would much rather have this serendipity of life occur around me than have everything really squared off for me.
When I think of an experience design I think of a roller coaster in an amusement park and that’s pretty close presecriptive design element. I might have eaten too much cotton candy before and feel sick, but for the most part man I’m experiencing what somebody wants me to experience. I don’t want life to be like that. I want to choose to go to the amusement park, only some of the time.
Jeff Parks: It’s becoming more and more clear, you are talking about cultures and you mentioned in your book you refer to America as being Canadian and I’m going to pull my country into the equation and say North America if you don’t mind.. and talk how North Americans we tend to have a hard time seeing outside of the box I think.
And you were talking in your book on ethics and morals and morality and how these things have an interdict role to play because ultimately what we value or what we see as ethical or appropriate or the appropriate process to follow either in a business or a social context; that may be entirely different than what people expect or demand in a place like .. Japan, for example. And so do interaction design need to take this idea about culture more seriously than we have in the past? Than we’re doing now? That we need to in the future?
Jon Kolko: Ya, absolutely and I think that the ball is sort of in our court to do that. I use the example that, I’ve been working with a fortune fifty telecom company. Really focusing on some of the strategic aspects of their business, but also getting down to some of the nuances of how do you sell ring tones and ring back tones. So we’re all the way from giant business all the way down to pacific, what is in the UI while we’re selling these things. And that’s a North American thing. It’s my responsibility to go “wait a second, you think that you’re getting into the African market? Maybe we really need to refocus priorities here”, and we’re talking about someone making a $1.50- $2.00 a day, maybe ring back tones is not really the right focus of this stuff. I totally think that’s my responsibility.
It’s a hard sell, CMO executives don’t want to talk about culture, they want to think that they are effecting it, and they are, no doubt, but they don’t want to have a conversation about that. They want to have a conversation about the bottom line. I think that we need to very slowly but very aggressively shift our focus from being entrenched in business which needs to be yelling, design needs to be in business, further down the food chain, chief officer, we need to kind of pull back on that and over time actually get closer to the idea that maybe design is not entrenched in business, and all of us can be doing our job not working with these big companies, you know, not doing, not making millions of dollars.
I can take that in a totally different direction if you’d like. But fundamentally I think that conversation is ours to have.And because now that we’ve caught ourselves in businesses or so we think, we can at least raise the conversation. We need to be really good at anticipating on where is will go though because I’ve had this very same conversation even in my internal organization that get it, they totally get it. And they say I’m not sure we have time for that talk.
Jeff Parks: Can they afford not to have that talk though?
Jon Kolko: You know there is the long now and then there is the short now. And the short now, sure of course you can afford not to have it. Profits will continue. And maybe even the long now trend sends our life which it makes it super difficult to get people jazzed about. I don’t think it does, I think the long aspects of this is about 10-15 years and that most of the kids graduating now, 21-22, they don’t care about making money, they don’t care about the car, the big house, and the three kids. They want to make a difference, and part of the entitlement generation is they feel they are entitled to (a) to make a difference and (b) to a world that is different. So our artificial structure of reporting chains and fortune five hundred “this” and all that… they don’t care.
Jeff Parks: You’re right, they don’t and thankfully so, I might add for a brighter future for us all. In you’re book you also talk about beyond the need to educate, promote and let others see value in the approaches like interactive designers can bring to the table. You also talk about the aspect of handling kayos as it relates to the increasingly complex problems that interaction designers are charged with every day. You know, insights from Alan Cooper, Peter Morville, and Louis Rosenfeld about the overarching theme of “Wayfinding” on the web, (this is specific to the web, not necessarily their products) around the commonly understood framework data > information and knowledge > wisdom. And I was wondering how does the interaction designer people go from chaos to making wise design decision. And I know I’ve thrown out “100,000 foot level” question here (laughing) but do you have some experience or idea’s to share around that?
Jon Kolko: Ya, it’s a great question! I think fundamentally that’s our value is what you described as managing that casting that velocity. I call that syntheses, other people call it analysis and synthesis. There was a time when it was referred as genesis as well, but I think it’s this idea of actively moving from data to wisdom over and over and over, on the path to a design solution. And I think the biggest piece of feed back or a way of describing the value the designer has.to somebody asking, would be, focus on syntheses and formalizing methods for it. That’s the secret sauce! That’s what we do that marketing doesn’t do, that technology doesn’t do, that any other facet’s of another organization are probably ill prepared to do. It’s the idea about abduction, and we could have a whole different topic about that, abductive thinking; it also relates to the idea of flow and play. It’s that notion of trying things. So prototyping, reacting to prototypes and along the way I guess it’s that idea of user centeredness,. I think getting someone to pay for and value synthesis means that you’ve then to pay for and valued design intellectualism. It’s not just bring a designer in to do the plastics or some slap some skin on wires. It’s for for us to do a fundamentally intellectual process of making meaning.
Jeff Parks: Exactly! There are a few aspects that are very tightly related in you book. The idea of esthetics, experience, and poetry. How do you see these elements in our ability or inability to control them impact on interaction design. Or the possible processes that interaction designers are currently engaging in now.
Jon Kolko: Yes, and it was noted by a friend of mine at the poetry parties, like the shortest part of the book. (Jeff Parks: laughing) Ya, it is because I don’t know exactly what I’m talking about there. It’s like I form these things in my head and I’ll go back to the straight razor conversation. There’s this guy who talked about a straight razor, talks about these poetic times where even in the morning where it was quiet and the kid you can kinda hear down the hall, the window is a little half open, not to be too obtuse butterfly flapping in (Jeff Parks: laughing), but you get the idea. It smells like spring, just out of the shower the face is warm and he’s shaving, he’s shaving with a straight razor. Which means he’s achieved a level of focus or else he’s going to cut the hell out of his face. (Jeff Parks: Laughing) Where he’s one with the object, the room, the smell, everything is perfect. I’m not sure if everything in life was like that life would be very good, because we’d be like “ Wow man, brushing my teeth is so awesome.”
But I also don’t think that if a client said “Hey, I want a poetic experience” that most designers, and myself included would know what to do and how we would treat it differently. You know if they said “I want a super utilitarian experience” and I want you to focus on sentiments or actions, that will get the job done as quick as possible, verses, which will allow people to really reflect on life.
There has been some good talk recently about the idea of affect, emotion, and experience. There is a lot of people who are smarter than I am focusing on this for design research and PhD’s and things like that, but pragmatically, a set of tools or methods or activities that a designer could use, we don’t seem to have that. And rarely do most conversations when they get there they say “Oh, make it more like Apple.” and say, “Okay, we’ll tease out what you mean by that”. I don’t know if that ‘s the same for you? Is happy the same as seductive? Is beautiful the same as gorgeous? Are they nuances? How do we do those? How do we target those things?
It’s sort of a round about question and the reason why it’s round about is because in my head it’s a goal but I have no clue how to achieve it.
Jeff Parks: Yes, and maybe you have touched on this already and forgive me if you have. I noted in your book this was really interesting. It got me thinking for a while about this, about a poetic interaction may not be a usable interaction. And I thought that was really interesting because I started going “ Ya, because there are interactions with other people, other devises other things that we have everyday that are poetic in terms of maybe it’s our first experience with it. For example, picking up the iPhone for the first time that you never had touch screen technology and it’s amazing and maybe the usefulness of that interaction to you as an individual is…. well, for a lack of a better word, completely lost! And was that the idea you were driving at when you stated that?
Jon Kolko: Ya, there’s something to that. I think another way of reflecting on it is… I’ll tell you a quick story. When I was a freshman in college I was over at now my wife, at the time my girlfriend Jesse’s freshman sophomore, her ice machine in her freezer, the ice was compacting, and compacting until there wasn’t a lot of freezer left, there was just ice. So I had the idea that I was going to chip it all out because I’m seventeen years old, I don’t know how to defrost a freezer. So I grab a putty knife and I’m chipping away at the ice and eventually I hit the plastic and the freon is going everywhere! Obviously that’s a terrible thing to happen and don’t think who ever design the freezer wanted that to happen they didn’t consider a use case for that.
Fast forward ten,twelve, fifteen years, now it’s like a joke between us “Oh remember the time when I broke your freezer? ha ha ha.” We remember the times that we fuck up that things breaks or are flawed. And then those are things that become hilarious conversations; great memories that are shared between people. And to some degree, those are the poetic parts of life. Where as all of the rest of the time the freezer worked just fine, I don’t care, you know I got a cold burrito, awesome. Microwave is absolutely cool. I don’t have a list or good fond recollections of when my appliance didn’t fail. That leads down towards a very scary path. “Awesome man, we’ll just design it to break.” (Jeff Parks: laughing) It’s even larger than that, that’s not doing it justice. But there is sometimes about the negative which can be turned into a positive and so maybe usability really isn’t the goal, all of the time.
Jeff Parks: Absolutely, I mean your book your book touches on so many different aspects; we could take one chapter and and talk about it for hours literally. (Laughing) Which is what I loved about it. But there was one area in there that I particularly liked, it was “The need to investigate mindfulness.” Can you explain this notion and it’s importance to the discipline of the interaction design.
Jon Kolko: Ya sure, Mihály Csíkszentmihályi talks a lot about flow. I think that people know him very well for describing the sort of world of creativity and the aspect that flow, the critically of achieving sort of strong, creative, unique, or “innovated design solutions”. And mindfulness is to some degree that state,( at least I’m applying it there) that sate of achieving flow. It’s important to justify it to mindlessness, it’s not. You’re not going threw things automatically with no care. It’s almost a level of such acute focus and detail that you sort of transcended your own brands inner dialogue, and you sort of transcended to what’s called experience cognition. So there’s none of that “ Oh, I’m on camera right now I can see him and hows the interview going ? It’s just happening.
Imagine now what we could achieve that in a product design or rather I can design into a product that sense my user experience that I don’t know how to do that, I have some thoughts on how to get close, but that’s pretty frigg’n powerful! If I can with a degree of certainty know that you will experience a mindful set of interactions with the product that I made. I’m thinking of just at a low level of education and training and in a high level in sports, and sports is a really good level of that I think a lot of testing goes into product design in order to get the sports equipment out of the way. So it’s like “I’m an athlete, it’s just an extension of my body. Same thing is true, the extension of my head, and digital products are conducive to that when everything just flows.
So I have some thoughts on how to achieve that but it only gets you closer. One is this degree of honesty and integrity and in a physical product that is manifests on the quality of the material selection. It’s the idea of having a coffee in a wtyrofoam cup verses a ceramic mug. I think we’ve all played with that and what are the things going on there. What’s that equivalent on the interface on a hand held?
Jeff Parks: The details matter less and the ability to convey the understanding, to get people to move past to how they think about things, to a different plane. Daniel Rose, one of the designers for Bell Canada, for example, was talking to me at VizThink the first year Dave Gray put this conference on, he was saying how it’s impossible to think outside of the box. All you can do is surround yourself with other people to expand your prospective, because when you have a problem you go to other designers. And you say “Oh I’ve got this problem” so your locked in to expanding that notion. So when you get close, or when you get close to patterning that idea of flow make sure you share okay? maybe a little bit.
Jon Kolko: (Laughing) It’s not my idea by any means. I think there is a lot of great research going on in a lot of universities. This gets to maybe another nit I have have. The academic research is world’s ahead of practitioners. But practitioners have decided that they don’t like to read and so most of never actually delve into the journals and the conference proceedings. There is some really, really great frameworks that we’re talking about here. It already existing, it’s just that know body has taken it that next step to how to apply it in my job.
Jeff Parks: I mean this is a life long learning process, this doesn’t stop at any point in time. There is no real ceiling for it which is great because that means we can innovate and create ‘till the end of time, you know it never ends as long as we’re open to that creative process. So I guess I have a ridiculously lofty question for you. Do you have a vision for the discipline?and it’s impact for the world over the next decade or so? Do you see it evolving, again we talked about these ideas of culture and ethics and these other things. Do you see it being a major player in the design world helping people move forward?
Jon Kolko: Yes I do, and I don’t think it needs to be framed as altruistic, but instead a natural extension of design. I think and I’m by no means the first person to talk about this stuff, but I actually think we’re really close to realizing a time where design is not in the business context. And this is probably blasphemous to all these people who fought really hard to get into the business context, which is a natural progression, but the next big step is to tackle the giant societal problems that are facing us. I don’t want to over simplify like we have all the answers cause we’re the designers, but I do think we have a method in process and a different approach than say a politician or somebody in a law capacity to tackle issues like homelessness, and health care, and nutrition and poverty. Up till now I think for the most part there has been two issues. (1) No one would take us seriously. “Okay, I’m the designer! Cool, colour in the wireframes.” But that’s a small problem.
I think a bigger problem is that we didn’t want to do it. And we we’re like “Wow, look at all the money I can go make” and I can make millions of things to reproduce and times that I can say I made that and I’ll be really famous and life would be great. And again to reference the next generation at the same time that the world seems to be imploding on itself. It seems like the little pieces are coming together where I could see in ten years not for profit design consultancy model that’s more successful than the IDEO’s and Frogs and Adaptive Path’s of the world and I could see a equivalent of a giant fortune company with all the mind chair meetings and commities, and hopefully not all the bull shit. You know what I mean? Focus on issues that matter. And not just making stuff for consumption and even entertainment, but to really focus on the bigger social issues that sort of plague us.
Jeff Parks: Well that’s a very important goal to have and one that we should all be looking at regardless of our title. Jon, again we could talk about this till the end of time. I’m going to wrap up the conversation, but I want to promote the interaction design conference coming up. Do you want to share a little information about that. As well Steve Baty was telling me the UX Book Club is going to be putting on sessions and you’re going to be leading a conversation about this book, I believe. Is that correct?
Jon Kolko: Ya, I don’t know how much I’ll be leading it (laughter) But the UX Book club is pretty cool. It’s going to compare and contrast some of the stuff from my book, some of the stuff from Dan Saffer’s book and then it will be an opportunity to have some pretty good discussions so I’m jazzed about that.
But ya, interaction 10 is going to be February 4th-7th in Savannah Georgia, registration is open now. One of the other things that’s really interesting that you can walk threw the programme at www.interaction.ixda.org you can get a sense the diversity of the different speakers and there like the old guard speaking contingent but there’s a whole slew of people that I just don’t recognize and I think that’s going to be the most exciting part. Is that there is a whole bunch of new names with new ideas and new ways of thinking about all of this stuff so you know, I hope to see you in Savannah.
Jeff Parks: That’s awesome Jon, and thanks very much, again the book is thoughts on interaction design published by Morgan Kaufmann. Best of luck in all your future endeavors. And thanks again to talking to me on Radio Johnny.
Jon Kolko: Thanks Jeff, take care.
Jeff Parks: Okay, Cheers!