This event featured an impressive list of very high-profile brands (Dolby, Netflix, Starwood, Disney, AT&T, and so forth) with executive-level design leaders speaking on various topics pertaining to shaping digital experiences for web and beyond. I attended only the first day of this 2-day summit, but it was definitely worth it if only for the following set of takeaways and reminders of what it takes to deliver top results:
** Defining and extending a brand from logo to product to personal emotion involves a constantly circulating process of moving from “iconic brand” to “great product” to “compelling storytelling”, that taps into latent emotions, of the aspirational variety.
** Think of the “consumer touch points” as “jewels” (physical like the Macbook Pro shiny button or Virgin’s mood lighting) that serve as signature moments and designed elements that differentiate and speak to the brand, as well as resonate with the user’s expectations.
** Where is your “innovation investment balance”? In some cases it may be under-balanced (too much on maintenance of existing) and other cases may be over-done (excess of exploratory research projects lacking focus).
** Seducing the CFO is a good thing ;-) Don’t forget to include CFO as part of your influence strategies.
** Consistency is good for setting a baseline, but don’t rely upon it as a competitive differentiator. Instead, focus on what’s appropriate for the platform and context of use. Esp true of mobile devices (watch / phone / tablet / laptop). Keystone elements like the logo and certain stylistic constants should help anchor, but should still allow for interaction and behavioral variance suited to the device situation of use, to make that branded device experience come alive.
** Innovation can be hampered by over-pursuing consistency: “Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative.” Quote from Oscar Wilde.
** It’s actually good to be inconsistent, sets up innovative opportunities! Just like breaking rules of grammar after mastering them, allow for poetic flourishes and novelty after baseline established.
** Think about proactive, dynamic curation of content, beyond static websites towards “state-aware” content systems: Using mobile device geo-location awareness and other forms of contextual sensing.
** Give users the content they need when they need it (or find most value from it).
** When evolving a social media UX strategy, go beyond “Like me”—sounds desperate! Instead think of the vanity and lifestyle aspects to build up “brag equity” ;-)
** What is “innovation”? Many many many definitions (sigh!) but most gravitate around “delivering change” that has “net relevant value impact” financially and culturally.
** Thus, value (and innovation) can be eroded and destroyed when there is confusion and lack of clarity due to mess of features, convoluted brand value prop, etc.
** Knowing your own intention is critical to setting on good path for viable innovation. However you may not know where you end up—that’s ok! As long as support user’s goals, contextual params, etc.
** Meaningful innovation arises from a magical mix of intention, intuition, and insights. Requires data and iteration. There is no formula or recipe. Requires risk, so don’t expect easy answers or crisp known decisions.
** The team has to care about the final 1% of a product, which is the hardest part. Involves craft and pride, moves the team morale forward.
** Don’t use user research to invalidate creative risk. For innovation to happen, need to support risk. Use research to invalidate assumptions and hypothesis about user goals/contexts/problems to “not be risky”.
** Inform your intuition by observing behaviors and being aware of situations. Keep exploring and learning and exposing yourself to new situations, radically different from your own daily routines. Empathy, curiosity, learning, it’s all a nice circle of continuity, must keep sustaining over a career.
** A “pivot” is really a mindset, not just a series of shifts to the business model. Stay focused on the aspirational customer-centric vision, anchored in values and principles that speak to your team and brand.No comments
Empathy is an essential element for practicing good design which delivers value for an intended audience or market. To design effectively is to design with a committed sense of deep awareness and care for the that audience’s goals, needs, concerns…from awful frustrations to joyful delights, and everything in between.
This point is also true, when it comes to designing with a cross-functional team, through the conduit of a shared, common purpose. Empathy is a necessary factor in building key relationships and understanding divergent perspectives that enable a kind of dynamic, creative tension for the whole team’s benefit, towards realization of that purpose. Ultimately it is a human quality that creates social adhesion for fostering trust, engagement, and camaraderie, particularly when arduously working through the most intractable or contentious problems along the way. It all comes down to respect and willingness to see “the other side”, so as to arrive at feasible compromise and viable alternatives that meet everyone’s goals.
This is not easy, in the slightest! Empathy takes hard work, patience and practice, especially when trying to gauge the emotional or philosophical tenor of an inscrutable colleague— or at least an agreeable colleague speaking obtusely ;-)
So how to foster empathy with engineering? Following are some articles that I’ve been reading up to grok engineering principles and practices. To help me truly deeply understand where they are coming from, what their issues and challenges are, what are those fundamental matters that keeps them up. My hope is that by doing this I can be a better designer and foster more team success going forward.
Operations cares about code and about the customer experience:
- If the servers and network are all up, and the disks have plenty of free space, but the blog-platform commenting feature doesn’t work, then the site can’t be considered “available”
- Ops engineers help designers and developers understand the operational implications of UX and application design decisions.
As of this writing towards the end of June 2014, it’s become increasingly evident that Google is now no longer that odd, awkward techie maladroit at the party with funny copycat socks, but has significantly evolved into a savvy agent of design craft (see “Kennedy” and “Material”) and cultural value (see cars, shopping, weepy ads). Who woulda thunk it?? But it’s true and it’s real. It’s time to cast aside former assumptions and acknowledge that Google is now a true force for well-considered, beautifully articulated design in the world. And as a field, we are much better for it, through the ongoing contest of ideas and philosophies pushing & pulling at each other…enabling innovation as well as emergent vanguards for taste and quality.
More specifically, coming out of Google I/O, the new “Material” design language & system represents the latest shift towards a sophisticated, systematic statement of design grounded in a pervasive and integrated metaphor of “material”, across platforms and services. Whether “pixels” are indeed a bonafide “material” is discussion for another time ;-) Yet, the vision is literally and conceptually all coming together as a unified whole with a unifying aesthetic amplified by subtle motion and refined typography. For some designers in the field, this suggests a worthy competitive difference to Apple’s iOS design language, with even more defined clarity and focus.
// More info here:
Google Material style guide: http://www.google.com/design/spec/material-design/introduction.html
Material Design Principles overview: http://thenextweb.com/google/2014/06/26/google-explains-principles-material-design-language-android-chrome-web/
Professional designers’ reactions to Material: http://venturebeat.com/2014/06/27/top-designers-react-to-googles-new-material-design-language/
And before Material there was Kennedy, which was Google’s initial big company-wide push for a well-defined aesthetic, thanks in part to Larry Page’s executive call: http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/24/3904134/google-redesign-how-larry-page-engineered-beautiful-revolution
Having been at a Big Data analytics startup for over 3 months now, I’ve been deep diving into a whole range of tools that enable the clear, swift, vivid articulation of complex datasets in a meaningful manner, with craft and integrity. It’s an astoundingly broad, diverse field of opportunity, from pre-fab templates to custom data-driven graphics programming toolkits. While I still rely upon pen sketching and pixel editors to “flare out” diverse ideas for high fidelity interpretations, the new models of computational graphics and web prototyping tools lend an inspirational factor worth indulging quite a bit.
Following are some relevant links worth perusing to augment one’s understanding of this area. Enjoy!
** Data-driven graphics: Involution Studios product designer Ben Salinas gave this fantastic talk about designing with real data to arrive at highly accurate visualizations that elicit exact user feedback, not just fake mockups. http://www.slideshare.net/UPABoston/make-it-real-designing-with-data
Salinas highlights specific tools that you can easily (and freely) use to scrape real data, generate into a format that you can poke & prod via interactive prototyping:
** Data viz toolkits: A few others that I’ve been looking closely lately include the following:
** Web prototyping tools: Quite a few new tools have appeared on the scene, def worth checking out to empower your ability to create something interactive and “real” for user feedback:
** Responsive grid systems: As I get into building out the revised vision for our product, I want to ensure a scalable flexible layout for various device screens, to be modern and progressive. To help me I’ve been looking at the following:No comments
I’ve been a designer in this area dubbed “Silicon Valley” for over 12 years now, having worked at a variety of firms including corporate, agency, and now at a startup. I had arrived fresh out of grad school with the simple intent to gather just enough experience and then move on to other places of innovation and design goodness, to advance and round out my professional foundation. Indeed, even my graduate advisor Dick Buchanan gently admonished me, “Don’t stay there too long. I wonder if there’s enough soul.” Rather ominous, right? Hmm, looking back on those words and reflecting upon my own long career here, I admit starting to feel that general sentiment: a melange of disconnection, desolation, and despair even. Ugh. What’s happened? Is it simply boredom and burnout? Perhaps it’s something deeper…
Now of course, there’s no question SV is a fantastic place for “Design”: the incredible mix of companies, people, colleges, networking events, cosmopolitan vibe, diverse food and drinks galore, variety of non-work cultural activities and outdoor options, etc. Tons of places for creativity and productivity. Career & education options abound for any designer with aspirations. There’s no place like it anywhere.
However, there’s something else afoot, an insidious aspect that undermines all that I (and we as designers, I might add) enjoy and partake. It’s hard to put any one word to it, but there’s multiple aspects to it, which I’ll try to itemize here:
— Echo-chamber of living in the self-created tech bubble: Yes we get these cool services piloted or launched here —and nowhere else— but there’s an over-emphasis on their importance and utility, in (dis) proportion to other regions, since nobody else has them. We doth rejoice in our own bounty a bit too much.
— Male-dominant tech geek culture: I’ve seen some pretty tasteless male-driven prezos at start-up events. We’ve all seen the overtly sexist apps and features. We need more women tech leaders (and inspire young women/girls to get involved in tech & science), and it’s happening for sure! Got to do better.
— Premium value placed on “silly” toy apps for extremely limited market samples (i.e., the white hipster crowd with no real problems): Yo? Yo. Yo! Oy.
— Greedy get rick quick culture of rapid serial returns, no matter how silly the “app” or “service”. Not being naive, I realize this is inherent to VC calculus and approach. Can we simply not be so hubristic and obvious about it? Stay classy.
— Billions upon billions upon billions: For what, a texting app? For a pair of headphones? For a thermostat? Let’s get real folks. Feels like a Banana Republic of Monopoly money, of which denizens like me see nothing despite working long hours on, ahem, solving real complex problems around virtual infrastructure, for instance ;-)
— Problems of extreme housing “value”, socio-economic distortions and displacements, busing the “techies”, etc.
And I could go on, but there’s clearly something less-than-positive here. These next few articles hit upon related issues more capably than I can, and are worth several minutes of deep reading and thoughtful reflection.
// More info here:
** Time for Silicon Valley to disrupt itself (i.e., culture): http://qz.com/225782/the-next-thing-silicon-valley-needs-to-disrupt-big-time-its-own-culture/