Category: General Stuff

The standard UCD-based design canon operates from the basic premise that there is a user problem to identify and solve. User can’t do X so we design an interface/product/service to help said user achieve X or alternatively Y.

As I become more involved in “next gen” or “concept” design work, I’m sensing that the real question that drives forward-looking situations isn’t really about “solving a problem” per se, as much as it is “identifying opportunities” to exceed expectations, leapfrogging banalities and envisioning scenarios that were previously impossible or simply ignored. Of course, there’s still some subliminal or ambient “itch” (or “felt difficulty” as a former prof liked to say) that’s greasing the axles in your mind to turn forward, searching out new possibilities.

What’s driving this opportunity seeking?

* New technologies, esp coming out of research labs or code geeks trying novel techniques. Does it sound like “invention in search of a problem”? Perhaps. But that doesn’t necessarily make it horrible in its own right, per se. This is where a designer with a strong grasp of the humanistic / cultural / social potential can join the fun and suggest avenues that really amplify the technology’s merits, towards becoming something that enables a total human experience that people will seek and value. In other words, meaningful tech.

* New business models for revenue generation, but NOT through urgent cost-cutting or gritty price-wars. Instead through expansion of markets, tapping new domains and customer segments, seeking new geographies and thus demographics that represent strong economic potential. Or even defining new business territories, over-turning existing models on their head, as Steve Jobs / Apple did with music and tv shows, or Netflix did with video streaming or Google did with search/ads.

* New contexts, scenarios, social/cultural behaviors and attitudes emerging with younger generations, sub-cultures, social mixing of populations, as well as adoption of new tech (like texting, facebook, webcams, smartphones). This requires constant vigilance and sharp observations to intuit underlying insights on motivations and approaches for doing something–the why and how. Is there something happening on the edges and fringes of social groups that are poised to “cross the tipping point” and become massively mainstream? Why is that so? How big of a phenomenon is it and what are the opportunities to shape it into a meaningful form or service or product?

So it’s more than just fixing problems (whether quick band-aids or triaging wholescale re-work projects) but actively seeking out those moments for what’s next and better than what’s current. What are those opportunities for significantly improving the human condition, maximizing a business’s value, and/or capitalize on some new technology magic?

I always find it amusing to see elaborate, trumped up job titles amongst UX folks like “ideation igniter”,  “strategic experientalist” or “interface pathfinder”. You could almost start a short career out of extravagant naming a la Dilbert “mission statement generator” :-) One title in particular that I’ve heard a few times is “design catalyst”, whether in job descriptions or personal resumes. What does it mean, anyway? It’s perhaps the sanest sounding of such titles, but still suggests some grandiose notions of design’s function in product development, almost like “rockstar” or “ninja” ;-)

Although, given some recent design projects I think I’ve gained a little more clarity around what a “catalyst” is in a designerly way, towards helping advance multidisciplinary team agendas. In some sense you could say I’ve been a “design catalyst”, but this realization only came to me very much afterwards, during a project post-mortem, reflecting upon what I did and how it followed through. A few key insights I want to share here:

A design catalyst IMHO is someone who is…

* Willing to drop in to a contested situation (a la Heidegger’s “throwness”??)  with little contextual background info, confidently generate models and solutions quickly on the fly (leveraging “rapid expert” or “genius” approaches of past experience), and spark questions that help the conversations move quickly through initial phases

* Able to quickly foresee and surface issues with current debates/questions/ideas (which may be muddled in some way due to language, politics, schedules, etc.) and think ahead to better possibilities, in a sense “leap-frogging” what’s currently being discussed, jump over the bottlenecks

* Quick to intuit the latent, unspoken yet very critical issues about the context, audience, functionality and business model, and express them in a very quick, active way: diagramming on whiteboard, rapidly sketching real-time, or mocking/protoyping right there with the team to force vital discussions of what’s most important

* Adept at abstracting away the tedium of details to the bigger issues: genres, modalities, paradigms, archetypes…and then diving back into the specifics with rigor and articulation to clarify what’s really at stake for the product: user, tech, and biz model too

Seems what’s key to make this a “catalyzing” function (from a design POV) is the speed & intensity of engagement, which is also quite brief (small doses, if you will), to help accelerate three major things:

a) the team’s understanding of a problem
b) the team’s discovery of novel design solutions and
c) an improvement of overall project / team dynamics towards a more productive, and dare I say, enlightened view of the situation

It is through the power of the designer’s imagination, visualizations, and persuasive rhetoric as a mediator to enable this catalyzing value for the benefit of the product team. Of course, it takes years of experience and a willingness to leap with confidence with one’s judgment…as well as a fearless sense of possibly being wrong! But the goal is the accelerate the team forward to a stronger, better place regarding the proposed product/service offering for customers, and a great experience for users.

Is being a “design catalyst” simply functioning as a “rapid expert designer” (aka, “genius designer”)?? That’s a debate for another day…hmm! :-)

No, this doesn’t refer to savvy engineers wearing hip, trendy fashions ;-) Just wanted to share some thoughts on this oft-debated issue of whether UI/interaction designers need to learn how to code.

Jared Spool recently spoke about it on his blog here. (and posted a nice short follow-up here on 3 reasons to learn to code, particularly about “knowing your medium” and “bringing your ideas to life via prototyping”) He was primarily looking at start-ups and the need to stay lean given the financial constraints and time-to-market delivery pressures. Although truly in any software development context, to maximize your ability at both designing and programming while supporting the overall product vision is an awesome ideal posture–just very difficult for many, if not impossible. But it can be done and is a great professional goal.

Some arguments raised against doing both design & code concern compromising theUCD stance when ascertaining what is best for the technology (versus the user) or struggling with two inherently contradicting masters, thus nicking the “user-centered” design vision. Or trying to be a generic “jack of all trades but master of none”, thus ruining both the code and the design. But those are frankly amateurs anyway ;-)

As for “compromising the UCD stance”…any pro designer has to contend with multiple masters (including Prod Mkting/Mgmnt, QA, Docs, the GM of the division, etc.)  and assuage the politics and nuances of needs/wants accordingly. Designers are inherently often in the crossfire of mediation, but with the advantage of seeing cross-functionally, empathizing with multiple POVs and visualizing options along the way to keep the conversation (and tough decision-making) moving forward. Any responsibly honed design must factor in tech capability, commercial viability, as well as user fit. Indeed the designer who willfully ignores the technical aspect is doing the user a grave disservice, in effect relinquishing their seat “at the table”. That designer, IMHO, has no right to complain if the shipped product doesn’t correspond to the design vision! Instead, the designer needs to figure out how to get involved in UI engineering discussions at a partnership level, if not as an actual coder herself.

So if we instead re-cast the issue around “how to insert designers into engineering collaboration”, this might make for a better cause overall. Whether the designer does the coding herself, or is deeply embedded (not just observing but participating actively, advocating critical choices) in tech discussions, it’s all for the same purpose: to achieve the intended vision of a design, made real and feasible, and adapted along the way to address and optimize for any tech hiccups so the user (and business) benefit. That’s our goal, right?!

I realize, it’s not as slick sounding as “designer coder hybrids”– which are awesome and perhaps will become more of the norm, as newer generations of designers become increasingly comfortable with toolkits, APIs, SDKs, etc (and taught them in d-schools)…

Ultimately, for their own pro credibility and enabling a product success, UI designers need to be much more aware of the capabilities of a UI technology and how this affects their design, and the user’s experience. Gotta ask yourself some key questions to start:

• Can the chosen technology be re-skinned and styled to get the desired design, with pixel accuracy? 
• Can it be made responsive / performant enough in the enviro intended to be used? (desktop/web/mobile)
• When the engineering team says it cannot be done, do you believe them? Are you able to suggest an feasible alternative with justification? 
• Is it a problem with engineer’s existing codebase than the framework of the technology? In other words, is it really bad “code design” on their part and would it mean a lot of rework for the “UI design”?

And in terms of skillset, the following are becoming invaluable for designers:

• Translate interface layouts into functional prototypes with clean, modularscripts and code snippets that can be reused for subsequent builds (as needed)
• Effectively and constructively call out an engineer when that person resists design-driven changes to a product
• Ability to argue back effectively and generate workaround design alternatives that logically address the engineer’s technical concerns

Bottom line, if you are willing and able to learn programming or at least some development tools/frameworks and gain familiarity, then by all means go for it! This will make you a better, stronger, faster, capable, influential designer achieving the user’s goals of enjoying a product that is satisfying and faithful to the vision. At very least, get involved in the geeky UI tech discussions and keep abreast of tech issues. Do tutorials and participate in forums or attend seminars at events like Microsoft MIX or Adobe MX, etc. (or Silicon Valley CodeCamp ;-) Become the UI engineer’s  buddy! As I wrote in my paper for HCI International, the ties between design and engineering are necessarily getting closer.

Design teams need to inform and guide the selection and use of proper UI tools/frameworks/tech for proper front-end presentation. At least having a close, active partnering relationship, asking good critical questions, and showing curiosity will help a long way!

 

 

It’s been a long while since my last post, almost two months! gasp. Been a very hectic time at Citrix with our recent Synergy customer conference and some new releases. But I’m always thinking of design issues and topics!

Here are a few upcoming topics I intend to write about soon:

• Why designers dislike A/B testing (from a designer’s own mouth ;-)
• What it really means to be a design “catalyst” (not a slick job title)
• Emotion / Beauty / Soul : what’s the relationship?
• UI design “genres” and “standards”
• Creating the “spaces and flows” of design innovation
• Fundamental truths of design (oh yes!)
• Design mentoring: tips/lessons/challenges
• Business model innovation & UI design
• Designing values, culture, leadership

(whew! consider this my tasklist for the next few months)

Also this summer I’ll be speaking at Hacker Dojo in Silicon Valley, at HCI International in Orlando, and helping organize another Citrix Design Summit this fall. A few talks from notable thinkers for the Citrix Design Salon coming up. And I’m participating in the Stanford d.school “Design Thinking” boot camp with several other Citrites. And gearing up for another CodeCamp presentation this fall on good design. Yep, it’ll be an action-packed summer! More soon…

This has actually been simmering in my mind for almost four years (!) since my days working at Involution Studio in Silicon Valley. What does it really mean to be a designer, as opposed to an analyst or guru or a UX professional? I’ve deferred writing this, as it necessarily involves wrapping some delicate and potentially controversial thoughts into a coherent message that advances, not condemns or offends. After all, we all benefit when the design field thrives via vigorous debate that makes us smarter and better. But it’s admittedly tough to do when I myself am a very passionate designer who lives and thinks in that “mode of being” (how so very existential ;-)

With that as background, today on Twitter I came across this blog post being popularly retweeted, prompting various reactions among my esteemed design peers. After having read the post a few times, I felt compelled to make a few critical points in brief response.

BTW I’m NOT gonna get into the semantics around “UX designer” as that’s been beaten to death elsewhere and we’ve all become quite bored of it ;-)

Yet I do want to highlight a few key issues that I’ve often mentioned before:
– designing anything well involves multiple “postures” at various moments
– designing often involves value conflict / conviction / compromise, making it a tough field for many
– designing requires aesthetics, sketching, and prototyping with earnest effort

Most importantly, IMHO this is what cuts right to the heart of being a designer: designing means you are an informed, talented visionary pushing an agenda for something better, through the influential force of your designs, rationale, personality, so forth. To elaborate further…

A courageous (and believe me, it takes guts to fight against mediocrity and short-sighted teams) designer recommends and advances, without apology, a strong vision of an improved or novel product / interface / service / system, informed by a deep understanding of the business, the user base, and the technology…and just as important, is her personal intuition, judgment, and experience. Some cynically call this “genius” design but the fact remains an experienced designer summons (unwittingly, or naturally) her past experience in identifying patterns and familiar situations and thus, optimizing a good design direction accordingly.

A smart designer listens to users, but isn’t beholden to acting upon each request or comment. More importantly she knows how to prioritize, filter, and yes even reject user data. A very good designer knows how to balance user input against personal taste, preference, and instinct honed by years of study, apprenticeship, and mastery of tools/methods/strategies. It’s an art, not a science. It takes serious practice and patience, and can be frustrating with lots of failures along the way.

A designer strikes an attitude of optimism, even idealism, with empathy, imagination, yet balanced with practical knowledge to execute a shipping product (specs, assets, prototypes). As Steve Jobs said, “real artists ship”. Can’t just stop at wireframes and flows. True designers deliver.

A successful designer takes a position and has an opinion at the table, of personal choice guided by professional judgment…and defends that opinion with sharp rationale beyond “it looks cool” or “i just like it”. A designer knows that the underlying basis of personal preference is a deeper connection to social / cultural / technical / commercial reasons and can suss that out, and articulate it convincingly.

A strong designer practices her craft with conviction, not arrogance. With clarity of purpose, not muddied by wishes and hopes. With acuteness of vision, in collaboration with other experts, but knows when to take a different course or push back (see above: having an opinion).

A bonafide designer knows the difference between using a process and having a process–and is willing to change it as projects change. Or not do some methods or even skip steps if not needed. That so-called “UCD Process” is flexible like improvisational jazz, versus an Excel spreadsheet. Having spent a decade at Oracle, Adobe, Cisco, frog, consulting for Netflix and LinkedIn and now a Principal Designer at Citrix working with the CEO and VP of Design, i know :-) Trust me. Or read accomplished designer Michael Beirut on his process. Might sound familiar to most folks ;-)

The fact is any designer worth her salt has often, justifiably, rejected user opinions, trusted her gut instincts, pushed the UI pixel minutia to challenge technical constraints, deferred edge cases for the majority’s sake, confronted or altered business plans, etc. That’s simply inherent to being a designer, if you accept the premise of “informed, talented visionary” as the predominant posture.

I suspect the real issue underlying that blog post, is the desire to distinguish between “Designers” and what I term “UX Professionals”, those who frankly indulge in excessive user / context analysis and tons of flows/wireframes but stop short of advancing an interactive, aesthetically refined vision of an improved product that leverages design talent, intuition, and experience. After all, talent and intuition are necessary too, just a different type of data borne of personal factors, but no less valid. As former AIGA President and acclaimed designer Clement Mok said, “Design is the art of causing change in accordance with taste and intent.” Sussing out that “taste” in terms of visuals, behaviors, layouts, typography, and overall choreography of the “experience” (whatever the hell that means) is what makes a designer essential to delivering valuable, emotionally-rich products that people love and use. You gotta have conviction, opinions, talent, and drive to be a designer and deliver the strategy / product / service etc, otherwise you’re a UX Professional. That’s not a bad thing, but just gotta be honest with yourself about what role you play in the field. Are you being a designer or something else?