« April 2004 | Main | June 2004 »

15 posts from May 2004

Friday, 28 May 2004

designers vs. developers

interesting, and heated, discussion on the roles of Designer and Developer on the sigia-l listserv. I liked Ziya's standing on the issue - how it should be rather than how it currently is:

In a nutshell: All decisions regarding requirements, workflow, architecture, interface, interaction, usability and branding are made by Designers, who consult a whole range of stakeholders including Developers. Designers may use lots of different tools, media and methods as required *internally* but their primary output is the functional Prototype. The Prototype is done by Designers (not Developers), it's started as early as possible (not as a final "deliverable") and changed often, it's functional enough to demonstrate the intention of the Designers and the functionalities of the application and it's exposed to other stakeholders (and users when appropriate) as early as possible. Finally, Developers build and deploy the app based on the Prototype. Needless to say, everyone (including Designers) is involved in various degrees with pre- and post-deployment QA, feedback and post-mortem.

followed up by a list of reasons why it ins't this way currently:

Because,

For far too many apps, except for graphical design, the *entire* process is
dominated by Developers. They even get to "create new colors"
because...well, they can. :-)

For far too many people it's: "safety in numbers," this is the way the "real
world works" and there's "nothing you can do about it."

Far too many owners/managers don't know any better and are already convinced
that (while Developers are unavoidable) Designers are either superfluous or
something you reluctantly use to dress up stuff.

Far too few Designers have the training, experience, cajones and
organizational standing to propose and defend UCD practices.

Far too many people think that the Prototype is something Developers build
to test out their potential codebase before they start programming.

Far too many prototyping tools are beyond primitive, while much of
development and deployment is shamefully and unnecessarily complex.

Far too many of us have allowed the holistic process of Design to be
hijacked and continually chopped up by title mongers, which reduces both
operational and political standing of Designers in general.

I could go on... :-)


simplicity at mit media lab

SIMPLICITY is an experimental research program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Media Lab focused on developing technologies for design—designs that are simpler to understand, easier to use, and, ultimately, more enjoyable.

good idea but the logo sucks.

Thursday, 27 May 2004

web standards primer

found an organization called MACCAWS (Making A Commercial Case for Adopting Web Standards) and they have put together a "kit" on web standards to help people make the case for it.

The primer, What Every Web Site Owner Should Know About Standards: A Web Standards Primer, is cleanly written and along the side is a list of pros - accessibility, decreased page weight, ease of maintenance, etc.

Wednesday, 26 May 2004

Gnome Interface Guidelines

the GNOME Human Interface Guidelines starts off with a chapter on "usability principles" before delving into specifics interface elements.

Your application should enable the user to concentrate on the task at hand. So, design your application to show only useful and relevant information and interface elements. Every extra piece of information or interface control competes with the truly relevant bits of information and distracts the user from important information. Hence, don't clutter your interface, and don't overload the user with buttons, menu options, icons, or irrelevant information. Instead, use progressive disclosure and other techniques to limit what the user sees at any given moment.

Finally, present your information and interface elements in an aesthetically pleasing manner. A disorganized, cluttered-looking interface with a few elements can be just as distracting as an organized interface with too much information. Make sure that dialog elements are cleanly-aligned, and do not overuse or misuse color or graphics.

Monday, 24 May 2004

mfa is the new mba

in harvard business review's breakthrough ideas for 2004 - idea #9 is that "The MFA Is the New MBA".

HBR Breakthrough Idea - MFA

(via beth mazur)

Friday, 21 May 2004

links tricks w/css

CollyLogic: Ticked Off? Visited Links How-To

nice way of displaying visited links w/ background images & css as well as for the hover state.

Example

design eye for the usability guy

this is great! designbyfire's andrei rounded up some designers in both the digital and analog worlds and put together a design eye for the usability guy to give useit.com a detailed overhaul.

Usability Guy: Jakob Nielsen

the design fab five:

can't wait to see who's next!

Wednesday, 19 May 2004

Visualization Interface

This is a really neat visualization interface of "biological motion patterns" [1]. 4 attributes can be altered each on a continuum to display changes in walking: Male-Female, Heavy-Light, Nervous-Relaxed, and Happy-Sad. You can also rotate the visuals.

BMLwalker

(via ziya on sigia-l)

Thursday, 13 May 2004

learning from the past

issue #30 of uiweb - Programmers, designers and the Brooklyn Bridge

scott berkun looks at the design and building of the brooklyn bridge for lessons to apply to today's tech projects.

If nothing else, the Brooklyn bridge is a reminder of what difficult projects are truly like. Sitting at a desk all day arguing through bug triage meetings might be frustrating, but it’s nothing compared to what these people had to go through. I think of all of my war stories shipping software and web things (browser wars? hmmmm), and they all seem hollow and pretentious in comparison. If I ever want to align myself in even the most remote way with the best of design and engineering, I have to re-examine my own experiences against a much wider context.

There are exceptions of course, but if you look at the curriculums, there is only trivial attention paid to the deeper history of engineering and its social and philosophical context. There are no discussions of the connections between C++ and DaVinci (Is there a golden ratio for algorithms?), or parallels between software architecture and the roman aqueducts, or even the idea of beauty in code compared with the aesthetics of the Brooklyn bridge. Many computer science folks seem to want to claim the heritage of engineering, without inheriting the breadth of knowledge and perspective that comes with it.

John and William Roebling - chief engineers of the Brooklyn Bridge

Engineering for them was about fully delivering on commitments and working towards a superior level of craftsmanship. The bridge was built to a standard 5 times as strong and stable as the laws of physics required. They wanted to build something that would last and endure despite any oversights by anyone involved in the project. They understood the potential for (their own) arrogance, and planned for it. How many software or web projects can say the same thing?

specialization is partly to blame, according to berkun, in that organizations do not encourage employees to expand beynd their specialty.

the Roeblings aimed for a "higher standard" and set out to build something well beyond what was expected.

Designing the bridge, to the Roeblings, meant something like this:

design = aesthetics + engineering + performance

It had to be beautiful, reliable, and functional (The idea of usability or interaction design would surface somewhere within performance). They saw their role not just to build something that would transport people, or last 50 years (or 200), but to contribute to the landscape and the human experience of everyone that came into contact with their creation.

Tuesday, 11 May 2004

lessons from scott berkun pt.2

scott berkun continues (see post on part 1) his lessons that he learned outside of school:
(Part 2) What they didn't teach me in Design & Usability school

Decision maker or consultant

So here’s some direct advice: in any jobs, some decisions are yours to make, and some are yours to influence others to make. How happy you will be depends heavily on how well you understand what kind of job you’re signing up for. It’s a simple question to ask of a potential employer: Which kinds of decisions will be mine to make? If I’m not making them, given that my degree has given me expertise in , who is?

Of course in almost all cases, you’ll do some of both, but be sure you understand which things will fall into which categories.

most senior level designers tend to mostly consulting and the problem is those skills are not taught in design school:

you’ll have to learn on your own how to go about gaining positive visibility on a project team, how to gently teach others the basics of your expertise (so they’ll understand your value), and being persuasive in making arguments to people without your background. (All topics that should be part a 2 day workshop for seniors in design and usability programs.

the isolationist vs. the holistic

Since many design programs teach design as an isolated activity (projects and assignments are done by individuals) it’s not surprising that many turn out to be isolationists. They prefer to work alone, because they were trained and taught to design alone (or at best, trained to work with other designers, of whom there is a minority of in the business and technology industries). They are not used to having to place design inside another context (business, engineering, team). They may also not be comfortable with critiques or feedback from people who know nothing about design, or be willing to educate those same people about design.

'little d' designers vs. 'big D' Designers
the former focuses "downstream" and does mostly tactical work (creating icons, layouts) while the latter is focused "upstream" and is more focused on strategic thinking (funtionality, interaction, prototypes, business model, the customer experience).

In organizations where design plays a passive role, someone else is doing the heavy design thinking, deciding which ideas and concepts drive the website or software product: most of the time these people are not designers and have no formal design training. Sometimes it’s engineers, who drive the concepts as a by-product of the engineering and technical choices they make. Other times it’s a project manager or team leader that inherits the responsibility This means that the Big D designer, is not someone with the word design in their job description. It’s someone else.

how to get people to listen to you


  • Stop and listen more carefully to what others are saying. What are your assumptions?

  • Step back and make sure you see all angles to the situation. Is what you want really as important as you think it is? It is possible they are right, or that this isn’t the issue to spend your limited influence on.

  • Clarify the goals and objectives: are you trying to do the same thing they are? What are they trying to achieve, that what you want to achieve contributes to? (Note to self: if there is nothing, you probably screwed up weeks ago, by not knowing ahead of time the direction things were going in. This is rule #5 of consulting).

  • Learn how to be persuasive (won’t find this in usability books, but may in good business books such as Getting to yes, mentioned earlier). Who makes effective arguments in the group? Who is effect at convincing Important person X of things? How do they do it? Can you ask them for advice?

bone up on basic business skills

It follows that to do well in an environment interested in profits and revenue, a designer or HCI expert needs to know something about the MBA philosophy, terminology, and outlook on the world. They certainly don’t need to know everything, but something. The basics, some fundamentals, the kind of core stuff that could be conveyed in a long lunch in front of a whiteboard, with an open minded and friendly business expert (and a few cocktails first wouldn’t hurt).

scott recommends The Ten-Day MBA

usability reports need to be useful

The most important thing about a usability study is how what was observed should impact future decisions. Should some features get cut? Added? Changed? If so, how? If the study can’t answer these questions directly, or contribute to conversations of this nature, how else can it be of use? All of these things are what programmers and managers want to know. Statistical validation or details for how many people were able to do what, in what amount of time are all secondary.

snippets from scott's journal - things he learned from 9 years at microsoft

I don’t care what you know, I care what you do: Knowledge is irrelevant if it doesn’t act. So I’d rather have a team of smart people who know how to apply their knowledge to the product, that brilliant people that don’t. Your skills are the means, not the ends. Please never get distracted from the ends.

Usability or (insert job title here) is irrelevant unless it helps us be successful: You have a salary because the organization sells products you contribute to. This is a corporation, and though we want many good things to happen, we focus on good things that will earn us profits. Usability is only of value in how it helps that process. Same for programmers and everyone else. If we didn’t think they helped in that process, we either change their focus, or stop paying them. The same is true for every job title, every discipline, employee you see here, or at any of our competitors.

To be important you must lead…To lead see beyond your job title: Leaders cross boundaries, but rarely get fired upon. Get involved in how things fit together, not just how your piece is built. That’s who has impact, that’s who gets promoted, and that’s who earns the authority to make decisions.

My Photo

My Photos

  • www.flickr.com
    carriejeberhardt's items Go to carriejeberhardt's photostream

More Places to Find Me

Flickr LinkedIn Other... Twitter

My Tribe

  • Interaction Design Association

    Interaction Design Association

Subscribe

Powered by TypePad Member since 07/2003