Ghost in the Pixel

Being late spring, it’s that time of the year when hundreds of newly minted design graduates join the “real world” of design practice. So what would I say to someone eager to join the community of professionals dedicated to improving the human condition through useful/usable/desirable products and services? Other than some pithy trite axiom, I’d rather plant the seeds for reflective engagement in the spirit of Donald Schon’s “reflective practitioner”— What kind of designer do you aspire to be? This question is often in the back of my mind when starting new projects or with a new employer.

The kind of designer you are/will be is dependent, I believe, upon the following set of questions pertaining to some of the fundamental elements of “being a designer”:

* What kind of Questions intrigue you? Tactical (tools and techniques and matters of tangible craft), or Strategic (lifecycles, flows, process, architecture, etc.) or Conceptual (the “what ifs” and “why nots”, envisioning new paradigms and possibilities, not necessarily practical but to provoke new thoughts and attitudes, or anticipate novel directions)

* What kind of Problems and Domains excite you? Financial data visualization? Healthcare service improvement? Enterprise tools for business analysts? Lifestyle devices for consumers? Automotive telematics? (hint: there’s a TON of design potential in the non-consumer sectors that desperately need a consumer-oriented outlook to tap into it!)

* What kind of Artifacts do you like to work on? Interpretive (site maps, object models, taskflows, product architecture diagrams), Exploratory (wireframes, visual comps, prototypes), or Implementation (production assets, documentation, etc.)

* What Activities and Phases do you prefer and excel at? The upfront discovery phase of research and domain/problem analysis, with ethnographic studies? Intermediate phases of conceptual sketching and brainstorming and iteration? Later phases of production and implementation and documentation? Are you better at evolving existing designs, expanding features and markets, or envisioning new paradigms?

* What Purposes motivate you as a designer? Or in other words, why do you design in the first place? To make something really cool? To demonstrate improved usability and better user experience benchmarks? For cultural expression and advancement of the field? To become a rockstar celebrity with idiosyncratic quirks?

These questions will undoubtedly lead oneself on a path of discovery and understanding about what it is that drives you as a designer and the evolution of your philosophy/outlook/attitudes and also those values/principles that anchor you as a designer.

The wonderful and sometimes frustrating thing about the design profession at-large is the diverse plurality of perspectives across a wide range of intellectual traditions (social sciences, fine arts, engineering, business) but that’s what makes the conversations so stimulating and the possibilities for learning and growth so rich.

To all newly graduated designers and those seeking a refresher on your paths, asking deep and serious questions will enable an amplified sense of your goals and desires…to truly discover who you really are as a designer! And believe me, this is no easy thing, will take years, decades even. I myself am still just starting out after 8+ years of doing this…but it’s an incredible ride no matter what.

A couple of very insightful interviews on the creation of real-world software and hardware products for Apple by third-party vendors:

How Apple hardware is born

How Apple software is born

Per a recent ixda discussion thread, here’s Dan Saffer’s list of the best articles for interaction designers to read.

And Jack Moffet mentioned a couple very good ones too by Lauralee Alben on the heart of IxD and Marc Rettig’s short history of IxD.

I would add this one from Cooper’s Kim Goodwin, on how to kill good design.

Following up on the initial posting on Google’s “data-driven” ethos by web designer extraordinaire Doug Bowman, and the subsequent heated debate on data vs. design (on ixda, etc.), another web design guru, Luke Wroblewski has published a beautifully compact articulation pointing out the falsity of the debate (which the NYTimes even used in their article title over the weekend–hmm!). Indeed it’s not a conflict, but a parallel dialogue of approaches and viewpoints, working together.

As Luke says:

1. Data informs design
2. A handle on design builds credibility
3. Data is not the only way to make decisions

Nice!

On the same topic, Luke Stevens published this lengthy read teasing apart the issues of “data vs. design”, largely defending data-driven design with thoughtful explanation, but avoiding the typical holy war of righteous indignation.

Ok, that’s fine. However, my issue isn’t really that data drives design or not, but the following:

1. What is meant by data? Seriously. This may sound like a naive question but certainly in light of ethnography, affective studies, personal storytelling, etc (and more from Jane Fulton Suri, Liz Sanders, Brenda Laurel, among others). I’d say the parameters of what constitutes “data” are broadening. I fear there is such rigid attachment by researchers, marketers, engineers to just numerical studies that there is a blind spot to other kinds of data…

In addition to the conventions of web analytics and statistically quantifiable numeric studies/surveys/measurements, there must be room for the data of past professional experience, evolved and applied patterns/principles/guidelines, and yes personal intuition via judgement and thoughtful insight (developed over time with exposure to projects, clients, etc.)

I suspect that a rigid adherence to only numerical data is actually just a snub of contemptuous disrespect for trusting a learned and experienced designer’s judgement, which is multidimensional and dynamic…and evolving.

2. What about the soul of a design? How does extensive numerical data studies enable the aesthetic character, the humanizing quality, the elusive wonderment that makes a design resonate with one’s dreams and desires? “To light a fire in the mind and breathe life into the heart”, as former Sony head of design once described some compelling design concepts, is not something numbers can do. It takes a genuinely inspired and talented human being to elicit forth such qualities in pixels and matter, through a complex messy amalgam of culture, expression, arts, language, style, and so forth. There is an ineffable quality that transcends mere numbers, suggesting a poetic graceful elegance…a kind of equipoise if you will. Hundreds of numerical studies will not provide this no matter how rigorous or detailed. Some of it may be of value, but as Doug Bowman says, “But we take all that with a grain of salt.” And remember… as Jared Spool said once, “any piece of data can be whipped to confess to anything.” It takes the judgement, inspiration, experience, and temperament of the designer(s) to resolve a cohesive blend of the rational and the imaginative into something that people will emotionally connect with and effectively use.

Marissa Mayer may unapologetically say “We let the math and the data govern how things look and feel,” but doing so only confesses the lack of humanity and soul in Google’s products, only a raw Terminator-esque ruthless efficiency embraced by triumphant engineering-centric glee. (Google Analytics–ironically–may be an exception, as is Google Chrome. IMHO per the recent bayCHI talk)

And finally, since when did a numerical quant study alone lead to some of the grand paradigm-shifting, breakthrough products of our time: the iPod, the Dyson, Tivo, Prius, twitter, youTube, blogs and of course the iPhone. Those dramatic jumps of insight more often involve multiple kinds of “data” mentioned above, and the recently recognized skills of abductive thinking (as Frog’s Jon Kolko described at Interaction’09)…with some curiosity and inventiveness and a good measure of perspiration, to hint at Thomas Edison’s old saying. Indeed, from the NYTimes article: “It is more from engaging with users, watching what they do, understanding their pain points, that you get big leaps in design.”

One of the most critical ideas advocated at CMU via Dick Buchanan’s seminar was that of “interaction” as extending beyond mere websites and software forms towards…well, lots of things: products, services, systems, processes, even entire environments.

Indeed, going further, “interaction” is most powerful as a perspective, set of methods, and the core basis of human-centered principles. This is what really adds to the depth and richness of true “interaction design” and what I think many members of the IxDA community (at least in the US) are struggling to come to terms with, but having trouble putting a finger on it or vocabulary to articulate it. When people are arguing over “interaction design”, is it at the level of essential principle, or digital-specific craft, or evolving multi-disciplinary profession? I suspect much of the definition/job title “holy wars” on IxDA’s discussion forum (and elsewhere online) are predicated on this confusion of interpretation. What is truly meant by “interaction”?

---

** Interaction as perspective: Refers to a particular viewpoint, of viewing a design situation as exactly that–a contextual situation, shaped by interconnected relationships among person/activity/task/objects/goals, a meaningful dialogue between a person and “an other”: a device, an interface, a process, a brand, etc. It’s simply a specific way of examining design problems, in all their multi-layered glory with an empathetic, culturally/socially framed manner. There’s an undeniable ecology of consequence of evolving priority and impact to be considered in assessing the problem space.

** Interaction as a set of methods: Refers to approaches to unpacking a problem and exploring potential solutions, as usually associated with digital interaction design (HCI, UX, etc.). Involves scenarios, personas, taskflows, mapping/diagramming, storyboarding and prototyping, to tease out various nuances and subtleties, in an iterative fashion of course. All of which, of course, focuses attention on the relationship between people and objects and goals, etc. What are perhaps the inherent dependencies and assumptions? How can they be accommodated for or improved upon in a given situation?

** Interaction as humanistic principles: Refers to the inherently human-centered aspect to designing good products/services, based upon core principles of humanity: trust, dignity, beauty, empathy, emotion, story, delight, etc. A product’s interaction is its own value because truly good interactions resonate with and build upon what enables humans to thrive in their day-to-day living/working/playing (ie, lifestyles).