Insomnia

There is a new buzzphrase that has emerged. Apparently, we are entering the age of experience. The future will tell if this, like many other things, will pass or stick. However, one thing is certain, people that build products and offer services are becoming more and more aware of the need to provide the user with an experience that matches their expectations.

The deeper trend that this reveals is that there will be more demand for products to be designed instead of just being put together haphazardly. The corollary to this is that more and more people will be put in a position to make design decisions. And many of these people will not be professional designers.

A few weeks ago, while I was at a conference, someone asked the speaker: “How to we deal with developers that think that they are designers?”.

I don't remember who answered the question at the time but I remember the answer: “They are designers; Everyone is a designer”.

In short, everyone designs, we all make design decisions all the time when we do mundane things like shopping for furniture or pick clothes. That doesn't mean that all the design decisions we make are good. The responsibility of professional designers in this case is to help people with less design knowledge to make the right decisions and spend the time to educate them on what is bad design. Sometimes, a little bit of knowledge goes a long way.

Coincidentally, on my wait to the airport after the conference, I struck a conversation with the cab driver. He asked me why I was in town and I told him that I was at a conference about web application design. He went on and told me about his web site and how he was designing it and he barraged me with questions all the way to the airport. As I was stepping into the airport he followed-me to the door and asked: “If you had one tip, just one, what would it be?”

I gave him some random advice about not making his users work for nothing (like filling forms and whatnot). He thanked, me gave me the URL of his web site (he was selling African coffee online) and I went in the airport.

I have had some time to think about this a little more since then. I would probably answer something completely different today like: “Buy Don't make me think and read it.”

But that is not the true morale of the story. The most important is that any little bit of knowledge about design is worth sharing. Because, whether it is by choice or not; Everyone is a designer. And I never know when I might need to order some African coffee online and at that time, I'll be happy that I don't have to fill-out all those extra forms that he was going to put in his web site.

Labels: design

• 0 Comments

Since I got my MacBook, I have been plagued with random Kernel Panics that, at first I though were all related to specific software. But as time went on, seemed more and more random. Usually, they happened at the end of the day and didn't seem to be related to a particular piece of software.

After a while, I was suspecting a problem with heat buildup. I had noticed that, after a day of usage at the office, my MPB would be really warm to the touch when I packed it to go home. After installing iStat nano, I observed that the temperature would get all the way to 70C and yet, the fan would remain steady at 2000 rmp.

I had observed that the fan would speed-up when I was doing something CPU intensive but the speed didn't seem to be related to the CPU temperature, only CPU usage. That seemed odd to me as I use the computer all day and the CPU rarely spikes very long. So the heat kept building up and I kept getting Kernel Panics.

3 weeks ago, I found and installed Fan Control. A little control panel utility that monitors the CPU temperature and changes the minimum fan speed for me as the temperature changes throughout the day.

My MPB now remains under 60C all day and I haven't had an unexplained kernel panic since.

Labels: tech

• 0 Comments

In my last passage at the Pearson International airport in Toronto, I stopped over at one of the restaurants for a bite to eat. While waiting for my food, I observed a message stuck to the register on the counter. It said: "Do everything you can to make the traveler's life better."

I realize that the piece of paper stuck to the monitor is just a reminder. And that there is probably a better message that was given to the staff of the restaurant to give it context or meaning. Or was there?

I can definitely see the management wanting to get a better performing organization hiring a consultant. I can see the consultant telling them that they needed to have a vision statement for their organization. They lock themselves in a room for a day and collectively author this vision statement: At Molson's T1 lounge, we make everything we can to make the traveler's life better. And then the managers come back and organize a company gathering and serve drinks and present the company vision in a nice PowerPoint.

Although the statement is short and memorable (the business consultant told them that the vision statement had to be short and memorable), it does not have much meaning by itself. The individual employee, the one that didn't participate in authoring the statement, is left with two important questions: Where is the limit of "everything I can do"? and; What does it meant to make the traveler's life better?

I have learned last week that the solution is to make the vision concrete. You are trying to define an experience for the traveler so you need to tell the story from the traveler's standpoint and not the company's. To do this from the traveler's point of view, you need to create a clear picture of that traveler. In other words, a persona representing this traveler. You need to know enough about him to know what is important to him and what are his goals. After all, you cannot make his life better if you do not know what his goals are.

Once you now the person that you are trying to help, you need to create an instance of the vision. A context that the employees can use to guide their own interpretation of the vision. For example, you could tell the story of the traveler missing his connection an having a hard time getting home. Show how the employee at the bar can help make this traveler's life better by serving him food and, while he is eating, making a phone call to help him to get another flight or lodging.

In an situation like this restaurant, you might want to pick 2 or 3 personas to tell stories around. To make the story easier to tell and remember, you could make a small comic-book or short movie to show to employees this instantiation of the vision. Once you have seen such a video, you don't need a reminder on your monitor. The message becomes really concrete and memorable. This is a key element of creating a compelling experience for the traveler.

All employees at this restaurant are design agents of the traveler's experience. And they cannot design a compelling experience for the traveler if they do not have a clear picture in their minds of the vision for this experience. Making the vision concrete is an essential step in achieving this.

And you; Can you articulate in a concrete way the vision of your company from the point of view of your customer or your end-user?

Labels: work

• 4 Comments

Sitting at the airport waiting for my flight home this morning, I thought that I'd checkin on the second and last day of the Web App Master Tour in Minneapolis.

The bar was set high after the first day I was pumped to hear more. Bill Scott started us off by stating that designing interactions is like performing magic on stage. It is in the details and in the performance. The slightest mistake destroys the illusion. And then he covered examples of what were those details that you have to pay attention to if you want the delicacy of the illusion to be preserved.

Then, Ken Kellog spoke about the path that his research team took to bring change to the marriott.com online reservation system and main page. How you have to ensure that you do no harm to the cash cow and the importance of negotiation. Also the fact that even if you have 100 stakeholders in a project. Each one is still a person.

After lunch, Luke Wroblewski shared results from his research regarding web forms. Most notably, how to handle validation and get better input from the user. He then went on to conclude that the best form might be no form at all. Discussing things like Facebook connect for registration and using alternate methods of input like GPS, camera and the like.

Mark Trammel from Twitter then proceeded to walk us through the latest redesigns to the sign-up process of Twitter and how it was driven by the model of engagement that they have constructed through their own user research. He explained the concept of the magnet, the hook and the glue. Which is used to take users through the engagement ladder from curious to casual and finally, to a committed user.

And finally, Jared Spool closed the circle by finishing up the concepts that he had introduced in the very first talk by discussing about the importance of having a vision that you can articulate. That their research concluded that it is an essential component of the recipe for companies that were successful at creating compelling user experiences.

In short, 2 days of interesting talks and discussions. Well worth my time.

In addition, this was my first time in Minneapolis and I felt right at home. I had the whole evening to soak in the city and I am glad that I did. I walked to a restaurant by the river called Ginger Hop and mingled with the locals. Had a really good vegetarian curry and a local beer called Farm Girl. Traded baseball storied (always useful to have one of those handy) and finished the evening catching a movie at the MSP International Film Festival. (the movie was called The bone man and it was very good. Got a little weird at the end)

Awesome time and I am really looking forward to the next time I come back to Minneapolis or the next time I cross paths with someone I met this week.

Labels: design

• 0 Comments

Just thought that I would write a little something before I walk into the second day of the UIE Web App Master Tour in Minneapolis.

So far, it has been a really fun and interesting experience. Lots of interesting people and really great presentations.

Jared Spool opened with an interesting presentation about some of the research that he and his team have been working on to try to define what the required skills that a design team needs to have to solve the difficult problems that today's application can bring to the table.

Stephen Anderson also shared his work on the psychology of the user and how what is known about psychology can help make applications more seductive. He walked us through the process of using mental notes cards to help with brainstorming. (I want a deck of those cards)

In the afternoon, Hagan Rivers spoke about navigation hell. That is a really large topic that seems a little dry. No worries, the presentation was pretty interesting and had 2 little gems in it: Navigation is its own application and Navigation is like storytelling.

Christian Crumlish spoke about social media. He broke it down into its basic components and the patterns that make things social. With simple examples and a few anti-patterns to be aware of.

The day ended with Jason Fried that walked us through the redesign of the project overview page of the Basecamp application. He even joined the conversation with his team live from the stage to comment on an iteration of the design that had just been posted on their chat. (he didn't like it)

Looking forward to today's presentations, I'll check in again tonight or tomorrow.

Labels: design

• 3 Comments

Oh yes, I said it, the geeks don't matter. Or maybe I should be more nuanced: As a consumer group, the geeks don't matter as much as they used to.

After the latest round of announcements from Apple about the iPhone, All over the internet, on blogs, FaceBook, Twitter and wherever you choose to point your browser, you'll find a whole lot of angry geeks. That is, if you are yourself a geek. Otherwise, you're probably not reading those articles.

People are angry that Apple is further building their closed system. That they are removing user's freedom to choose. That they are forcing developers to write Apple specific code by blocking cross-compilers and all that. They vent online making all sorts of arguments about how they won't use Apple products and how they have lost their trust in apple that has finally become as bad as Microsoft.

Vent and rant all you want. Rest assured however that it doesn't matter. It will not change Apple's decisions. You, me, the geeks, are not the main customer group for Apple. See, we never were. This is perfectly consistent with Apple's past behavior and strategy.

And geeks all over should be ready to suffer even more and get angrier. Not only are geeks not the main customer group for Apple. But they are bound to loose their status as the main customer group of most other technology companies as well. The biggest accomplishment of Apple over the past few years, culminating with this week's announcement, is to demonstrate that if you don't aim your technology product to a technologically savvy audience, you end-up making bucketloads of money.

This means that other technology companies will also realize that they can stop caring about the requests for openness from the technology elite. They can safely ignore this because it is much more lucrative to sell to the normals than it is to sell to the geeks.

Some will argue that this is not the best for the consumer. But then again, companies rarely do things because they are best for the consumer. They do things because they are best for themselves. (tobacco, agro-industry, oil companies, etc...) Why would a company like Apple (or Microsoft, or Google or Amazon) voluntarily limit the amount of revenue they can extract from their customers just to preserve their rights to choose the content that they consume or the way they consume it.

Consumers will continue to purchase proprietary devices with arbitrary limitations because they are not interested in how it works or why it works in a particular way. They just want to get something that satisfies their needs, that works and that they can afford.

I guess us geeks should get used to this. The era of large technology companies run by geeks building products for geeks is over.

Hey... we had a good run, it was fun while it lasted.

Labels: tech

• 8 Comments

A few weeks ago, I read an interesting post from Darren Barefoot who was asking What if we traded employees like hockey teams trade players?

It is an interesting concept but I think it might be too much of a culture shift to be practical.

As someone already pointed out in the comments, large companies already do this between departments. However, I work for a smaller company and there are no other departments to shift the employee to.

Although my employer is not big enough to do this, the company is old enough to have employees that have been there for more than 7 years. Some are choosing to leave. Not necessarily because it is not a fit or are unhappy but because they don't want to stagnate. There's an urge to see elsewhere.

What if we sort of went half-way? What if companies were setup to participate in an employee exchange program? Take 2 software companies in the same town. One is specialized in iPhone development and the other is specialized in writing software for medical devices. Both are staffed with a mix of programmers that are competent but some of them need a change of pace and are feeling the need to keep their knowledge fresh. They could swap one or 2 programmers from each side for 3-6 months.

As an employee, it seems like a good situation. Your employment status doesn't change, you get to satisfy your wanderlust and you get to learn new skills.

As an employer, you benefit from having people trained in the other company's specialty and in addition, you get to learn a little bit from how the other company works. There might be an opportunity to streamline your own practices. Since you're trying to involve employees with similar skill level, they will contribute to your own projects. Maybe not as much as a fully ramped-up employee but it is like getting some training for a lesser cost.

There is always a risk that, after the exchange, the employee might want to stay with the other company. It is probably possible to mitigate this contractually. Through a no-hire clause or through some compensation agreement. But I feel that the openness of the exchange program would make it easier for companies to be better prepared for these unplanned departures.

I have been working 12 years in the same company. I like my job, I don't want to quit. But if I had the opportunity, I would be interested in seeing how it is done somewhere else. If just to satisfy my curiosity and possibly learn a thing or two.

Labels: work

• 2 Comments