Speaking at MX, My Interview with Todd Wilkens
Posted 23 days ago
If you enjoy the leadership and management themes I’ve been focusing on recently, then you’ll certainly want to look at Adaptive Path MX. AP has pulled together a stellar lineup— Chip Heath, author of ‘Made to Stick’, Chip Conley, founder and CEO of Joie de Vivre Hospitality, California’s largest boutique hotel company, Julie Peters, Brand Manager at Virgin USA, the stellar folks from Adaptive Path— the list goes on… If you’re managing or leading a UX Team, this looks like the conference not to miss. In speaking with Brandon Schauer and some other folks at AP, they basically describe it as the conference they would want to attend on the topic. And it shows. I’m really excited about this event.
While it’s a little late to be plugging a conference that starts in a couple days, if you are planning on attending and haven’t yet purchased tickets, you can reference ‘MXSA‘ for a 15% discount. That’s if you haven’t already registered.
I’m also very excited to be among the speakers presenting. A few months ago, I had a chance to speak with Todd Wilkens at Adaptive Path about my presentation (if you’ve seen my Star Wars presentation, it’s a version of that talk, with new content and an emphasis on some of the things that I glossed over in earlier versions— namely pushing visionary ideas through a corporate culture). I’m pleased with how the interview turned out. Todd asked some really great questions, which allowed me to comment on many of the more strategic leadership themes that I haven’t yet written about here. If you haven’t yet read the interview, please do. And then let me know what your thoughts are…
And if you’re planning on attending MX— come say hi!
Add a comment!
[IA Summit 2008] 'Managing A Strategic UX Team' Model
Posted 23 days ago / 2 Comments
If you’re managing (or part of) a team inside of a large corporate organization, then you’re familiar with the difficulties of juggling strategic and tactical concerns. This was the focus of my poster for the this year’s IA Summit. So, for all you ‘innies’ running a strategic User Experience Design group, here’s a model for you:
Download the Managing A Strategic UX Team Poster (pdf file)
[CLARIFICATION: Since creating this, I’ve joined Viewzi — I no longer work in the corporate environment in which this was produced…]
The Problem that led to this model
In my experience, we’re frequently asked “what are you working on?” Many times this is just a conversation starter. And other times, if it’s a project owner, that person really only want to hear you say “yes, we’re working on your project.” But at the executive level, the question is a strategic one: what is it that you are working on that is either going to make me look good and/or benefit the business. In these circumstances, we’ve two challenges:
- address their concerns, but also
- communicate how the things about the UX practice that they may not understand but are linked to top level strategic goals.
This is a communication problem. And a difficult question for UX groups to answer succinctly, given the breadth of activities that we are working on at any given moment—from ‘order taking’ on interface efforts to design research, internal presentations, technology experiments, or perfecting our ping pong skills.
But more than a communication problem, this is a strategic planning challenge: As a leader in a company, I have to be able to defend how every bit of our time fits into the overall strategic direction. This is especially the case where resources are tight and you have to make trade-off and priority decisions that don’t sit well with some.
3 Boxes Model
I’m a big fan of models—especially models that ‘get it right’, making simple the complex and providing a platform on which people can map their activities.
So when I came across the 3 Boxes Model from Vijay Govindarajan, I found it to be one those rare occasions where someone has framed the strategic conversation in a way that is easy (very easy!) to understand and can be built upon by almost any group inside an organization.
The ’3 Boxes’ are:
- Manage the present
- Selectively Abandon the Past
- Create the Future
...which are then rolled into these into 2 groups:
- competing for the present
- competing for the future
Brilliant. The 3 Boxes apply to all business units, project teams or disciplines. The resulting groups— competing for the present / competing for the future— are the perfect frame by which to evaluate where you’re time is being spent. Which leads me to…
Proactive and reactive work
When I arrived at my corporate gig, it was agreed that to be successful (truly successful), the UX group would need to split our time between ‘proactive’ and ‘reactive’ work. Different words, same idea.
Reactive work consists of funded projects for this year— enhancements, incremental changes, new projects building upon existing structures. It’s this kind of work that most folks expect from a tactical UX group (aka ‘order takers’). And this is the work that demonstrates short-term value. Of course to a good design team this is the work that can be immensely frustrating—like straightening deck chairs on the Titanic. But, to quote Thomas Dolby: “A few years in the music business taught me that you don’t invest ahead of the revenue curve.”
Proactive work consists of those future ideas we have around how things should be (and could be, given a reframing of the problem to be solved). This could simply be the ‘ideal’ version of the reactive projects we’re working on. Or, these ‘future ideas’ could be a radically different take on what’s possible and valuable given our understanding of business and customer goals. Of course, these solutions might potentially poke at the business model or challenge the technology infrastructure—which is to be expected as one leg of the 3-legged stool.
One problem with this language— proactive and reactive — is that they only suggest user interface or project related work—which is only the end result of a bigger process. Between ‘proactive’ and ‘reactive’ efforts, there are a score of other initiatives that have nothing to do directly with any particular project or product design—training, brown bag lunches, design research, persona creation, guidelines and standards, etc.
There was another big problem. Not surprisingly, this language didn’t stick. ‘Proactive’ work began to be associated with the ‘fun, sexy stuff’ that was keeping us from doing the real work. Of course, this perspective is flawed— there’s a world of difference between work and progress. And anyone spending more than a few days with us quickly recognized the strategic value our UX group offered. We would never be satisfied with ‘putting lipstick on a pig’.
Putting it all together
So, a simple change in language sent me down the path that led to this model. I had already listed the many different activities we were or would need to be engaged in, and thinking in terms of competing for the present or the future proved to be the perfect base to layer these activities to… End result, this was a great framework for me to explain all of our efforts to my peers and upper management in a way that is strategic and not tactical.
And now…?
What I’m most curious about is whether this framework would work elsewhere, or is this only applicable to the culture in which it was created? I’m curious to see how these generalized activities translate into other companies and other UX Design groups with different cultures and roles within the organization.
So, now it’s your turn, innies. How does this work (or not work) for you?
Add a comment![IA Summit 2008] 'Inspiration from The Edge' Presentation
Posted 26 days ago / 4 Comments
This past weekend I had the pleasure of presenting at the IA Summit in Miami. The topic of my presentation? Other places to look for UI inspiration, specifically, other digital interfaces, such as the Wii, Tivo, Club Penguin, etc.
The Presentation:
The Description:
Want a fresh perspective on UI design? Look around. Not at other web sites or desktop applications but at other interactive media. Tivo, the iPhone, the Wii software interface, the ‘Sugar’ OS for the XO Laptop… there’s a world of new UI inspiration that is already being proven out in other devices— yet much of what we see in application design is more of the same. Tabbed menus. Drop downs. Form fields. Sure, patterns and conventions are important. But is ‘familiar’ always better? What might be more natural? While years of usability studies assert that consistent UI elements are a critical requirement, we also know that people quickly adapt to new patterns of use, new game interfaces, and new hardware-specific interactions.
To increase our field of vision, we’ll take a macro view of interface design, focusing on alternative UIs— and emphasizing patterns that can be leveraged in a business context. What might World of Warcraft tell us about improving our business intelligence tool? How might Club Penguin, a virtual destination for young children, influence the information architecture of our new CRM tool? How might designing for the iPhone affect our desktop UI designs? These are the types of questions we’ll explore, along with how skills in abstraction and synthesis can open our eyes to see new opportunities all around us.
Overall, I believe the presentation was well received. I had a great time preparing for and presenting this. And yes, this time round, I’ll be adding audio to my SlideShare presentation! :-)
To all who were in attendance at the Summit— thank you! I was blown away by the packed room and by all the compliments that followed. Oh yeah, I now have a complete set of the UX Methods trading cards. Whew!
But wait, there’s more…
A lot of folks asked about where (and how!) I collect all these reference screenshots. No secret really. Given how many people asked this, I’ll write a post listing some of the sites I frequent. However, here’s a much better option: Kevin Cheng has started a grouptweet called @inspiring where we will post interesting designs and ideas (web or otherwise) as we come across them. Spread the word!
Why I Am Not A Manager
Posted 33 days ago / 17 Comments
Confession time: I do not consider my self a good manager. I do however think I am a good director or leader. So what do I see as the difference?
In short, extrinsic vs intrinsic motivation. And providing a clear, actionable, inspiring plan.
Managers are great at making sure things get done. Directors are great at making sure we’re getting the right things done-. [UPDATE: As Joe points out, this idea originated with Peter Drucker who said this much more eloquently, “Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things.”] And that everyone’s inspired and empowered to make valuable contributions.
Managers are largely focused on the minutiae of day-to-day details: Are you getting done the things assigned to you? Have we communicated with the client? How well are we tracking to the project plan? When are you taking your vacation? Those sorts of things. While I can certainly be anal about my own work, I just don’t care to be that involved in what other people are doing. Isn’t that their responsibility?
What I do care about with regards to other people is whether or not we are clear on our roles and responsibilities. Aligned around a common, shared vision. And motivated— intrinsically motivated and passionate about what we, as a group, are building. Given the right circumstances, I think I’m good at creating this environment.
To be honest, I’ve felt a bit guilty about not being a better manager— I’m not good at crossing my t’s, dotting my i’s, or being able to account for what everyone is working on at any given time. I’m just not wired that way. Fortunately, I’ve been placed in leadership roles where I was somehow able to skip past the traditional managerial duties.
But as a director at various companies, I’ve also discovered something interesting: much of what managers do seems unnecessary when you have the right people on your team. I’ll say that again: much of what managers do is unnecessary when you have the right people. With the right people, self-management takes over for you. I think Jim Collins nails this when he says:
...if you have the right people on the bus, the problem of how to motivate and manage people largely goes away.
When you have the right people on your team, what qualifies as management is really about creating a platform from which everyone can track themselves. That, and figuring out how challenge folks so that they are delivering their best. This assumes a lot of trust and faith in their abilities, and not in your ability to handhold. Beyond that, management, in the traditional MBA sense, has been largely unnecessary in an environment where everyone has a clear raison d’être . Again, I’m talking about a specific kind of information worker. This doesn’t apply to all groups.
I think this quote from Michael Hillenbrand sums it up rather nicely:
Managers do things right; leaders do the right thing. This is the primary difference between a good manager and a good leader. A good manager can accomplish only what has been defined and documented for him or her, yet a good leader constantly questions why things are done the way they are and is able to recognize the value and potential of doing things differently. A good leader is passionate about excellence and must therefore strive for continuous improvements and change. In other words, a good leader knows that insanity is doing the same things over and over and expecting different results. [ Source ]
Next up: what qualities do I think makes for a good leader?
Add a comment!Are Image Reflections A Cliché?
Posted 66 days ago / 7 Comments
Or, when is a cliché, not cliché?
I’m working on project where we will be displaying images. And I’m probably going to recommend adding a reflection to the images:
Yes, the played-out, trite design aesthetic: the reflection. Made popular by Apple and (in their wake) every other ‘Web 2.0’ styled site . So popular in fact that there are a variety of different scripts written to make it effortless to add a reflection.
So, being aware that this is not a unique visual signature, and that it seems to have peaked as far as visual trends go, why am I recommending we add reflections to our images? Because it’s natural.
Shadows, reflections, translucent surfaces— we interact with these in the real world, and there are very real cognitive (and emotional) associations with these visual elements. Aside from attractiveness, a reflection is associated with clean surfaces and high style. Long before Apple, most luxury product shots for the last 30 years have included reflections. Reflections communicate class. Also, to have a reflection (of the variety we see today) implies that the object is standing up. If these images were laying down, on a table surface for example, we’d invoke a shadow— another cliché, right?. But they’re standing up, which means reflection (if the surface is at all reflective). Again, these interfaces mimic natural design patterns, and carry with them the same real world functional qualities. I might argue that the concept of affordance, while typically associated with more directly actionable things (like buttons), would also apply to this ‘styling’ decision, given my views on how aesthetics— for information or style— contribute to function.
In this sense, I don’t see the use of a reflection as a trend, but rather a small part of a steady, longer-term progression in interface design. Albeit one that could stand to be refined and served up in a variety of ways— different reflections for different surfaces, for example.
But, consider this: Can a visual element become so trite that the ‘Ugh, here we go again’ response overrides our natural, biological response? Can we reach a point where it is ‘classier’ to not invoke a reflection or glossy surface? I start to think perhaps so, that we can, through overuse, create a learned response that overrides our natural response.
And then I waffle on that position.
Spending just a few minutes on a photography site such as Strobist makes me reconsider this position. Skilled photographers use lighting to accomplish a particular effect, or communicate a particular tone. Watch the end of this video on lighting (about 6 minutes in), and consider our natural response to the different lighting setups. Harsh lighting suggests cheap (by learned association) or naturally suggests harsh weather conditions. Dramatic lighting can be a bit… ominous. Diffused lighting creates a smoother, softer effect. And so on. In a century of photography, our natural responses to lighting conditions haven’t changed. Don’t misunderstand me. Personal preferences for or against these treatments have come and gone. But the effect of these lighting treatments has not changed. And as an interaction designer, I am concerned about the effect of visual treatments, not the artistic merits. Aesthetics—whether through emotion or cognition— play a functional role in how easily something works for someone.
Still, a bit torn on this, I looked up the term cliché. While mostly used of phrases, a cliché is just about anything “that has become overly familiar or commonplace.” I think the intent of something being cliché is that it was original at one time. The first time someone used an expression it was quite charming, and it went downhill from there. But can we ever label something that is naturally occurring as cliché? Is the sun rising and setting cliché? Can the effect of a squat, boxy shape making us feel safe become cliché?
Or consider the reverse: Would we ever say making alert messages red or yellow has become passé? Or that we’re sick green meaning ‘go’ or ‘move forward’—let’s change all our green street lights to brown?
Using a trendy typeface, that might qualify as cliché. But how something is lit, meanings we associate with colors, imbued meaning in shadows and reflections— higher order cognitive patterns govern our response to the deign elements, and for that, they can’t be cliché.
Or can they?
Add a comment!The Super Bowl and Information Design?
Posted 83 days ago / 1 Comments
Like a few other people I know, I watched the Super Bowl yesterday two weeks ago. Unlike a few other people (okay, everyone), what intrigued me most was not the game (nor the commercials, this year), but the game’s ‘ScoreBar’. Yes, this:
A little background:
So that you know where I’m coming from: I am not a red-blooded, meat-eating, football-watching American. I do tune in once a year for the Super Bowl, but more for the commercials and the halftime show. And because I feel it’s my duty as a citizen of this fine country. Lest I be lynched, my attitude (and aptitude) has changed over time, as I’m starting to appreciate football—just a little. In fact, this year, I was the first one to call my dad to discuss the New England Giants upstart (he was surprised by my call, to say the least). So football, not my thing. One of the things I do get excited by is good information design. And I was fascinated by the latest incarnation of the ScoreBar (anyone know what this is really called?).
What’s the big deal? the ScoreBar contains all the vitals we need to stay in the know. So what? Here’s what I saw:
Efficient delivery of information
For starters, did you notice the persistence of the information. In years past, we’ve frequently seen information appear (and disappear) at random times. So, someone passing through the room might have no idea what the latest score is. Or, if the game is not in play, who’s got the ball, how much time is remaining on the clock, and so on. Typically, there’s only so much real estate you should allocate for this information, and with team logos and such, it’s easy to see why this information has been served up in a revolving fashion. Not so with this year’s Super Bowl. Everything you need to know (stats wise) is always displayed, in a compact fashion that doesn’t distract from the game.
One clean bar. All the information you need.
Clear information hierarchy
One of things that drives me nuts is when there is no thought put into a navigation schema or things are thrown up with no reason. Not so here. There is a clear time-based sequential hierarchy:
The ‘hierarchy’:
- the NFL on Fox logo is seasonal
- the teams playing each other (and the score) are for the duration of this game
- time remaining in this quarter lets you know where we’re at within this game
- these are followed by different kinds of real-time information, most often being the current down/yards to go but also including time-sensitive information such as time outs remaining, touchdown, or flag
- ...and there is the Super Bowl 42 identification
Two quick comments:
First, the Super Bowl identification should technically follow the NFL Fox logo, but that would result in a visually unbalance presentation, which gets into visual considerations. Positioning this on the far right balances things out aesthetically, and allows the vital information to be centered on the screen.
Second, this design favors the utilitarian communication of information over unnecessary graphics or visually interesting layouts. Contrast this clean, ordered layout with versions from previous years (or other countries):
Subtle visual indicators:
You know at all times who has the ball. The indicator? A simple bar above the team with the ball:
Though not as iconic as the familiar football icon, this is just as effective at conveying this information. And more efficient.
Context aware:
In the UX world, we put far too much of a premium on consistent (read: immutable) interfaces. In contrast, I’m intrigued by things like adaptive, conversational interfaces or rhetorical navigation, things that change in the moment. Those thoughts apply in this situation, to the presence of the ScoreBar— it’s only there during normal game play, when it’s needed.
During instant replays or quick interviews, it disappears.
There’s a clear pattern to when it is present and when it is not. Again, contrast that with previous years when you might have to wait on some random interval to see the information that should be displayed at all times.
Context dependent information
Real time information is incredibly context dependent: seconds left before play, down/yards, number of time outs, flag, and so on.
The interesting thing to note here is that this kind of real-time information is relevant for a moment, and then updated with new information. You don’t need to see multiple pieces of real-time information at the same time. This follows the time-based hierarchy I described above.
Color is used to communicate
And if all that wasn’t enough, notice the nice change in background color to signify critical events:
Obvious (or understood) information is removed
With information design, what’s not there is as important as what is there. Too many projects suffer from multiple stakeholders who all believe their bit of the world needs to be represented, in the manner they would like. Notice here that someone (effectively) convinced the teams marketing departments to not only drop the team logo, but also abbreviate the team names. This removes the gratuitous (logos) and removes the obvious — complete spelling of the team names. From a ‘user’ perspective, it can be reasonably assumed that most folks will know the names of the two teams playing each other.
Visual design is aesthetically pleasing
The ScoreBar is not unattractive. There’s some subtle gloss on the bar. Some light 3-D effects. But subtle visual treatments. I mention this only because there is a perception that good information design comes at the expense of being visual interesting—that information design is boring. Perhaps, perhaps not. Whether or not an unnecessary, gratuitous use of graphics can, at the expense of communicating information, actually create an overall greater experience— I’ll save topic for another day. I just wanted to comment on the fact that bar is nicely designed, graphically.
So what?
The truth is, really effective design should leave people wondering what the big deal is. Here’s the irony, clients expect things that cost lots of money and take lots of time to seem like they did. To look complex or shiny. But the really great designs, the ones that break through and solve the real problems, will often be the most underwhelming. If there are lots of fancy bells and whistles and animations, be very concerned. That’s probably novelty. Not good design. Look at the iPod, basic box, right? However, the simplest designs are often the most difficult to design. How many sites get the basic things wrong? I love this quote from John Maeda.
To make what appears to be less can sometimes be more work
To truly appreciate the elegance of this bar (and why I spent far too long writing this post), you’d have to contrast it with the last 40+ years, where we’ve had everything from random displays of information to gratuitous visual noise that began to look like an all day news broadcast, complete with scrolling marquis and unnecessary logos.
I think someone got it right this year.
Add a comment!Presenting in Houston at Got Social Media
Posted 110 days ago / 1 Comments
Have plans for Thursday? If not, you should head to Houston, for a fabulous one day conference dedicated to all things social media. The event? Got Social Media. Tickets are almost sold out, but there are still a few of the 150 seats open.
Here’s the official description:
Got Social Media is a workshop based conference held annually (starting this year) in Houston, TX. If you currently work in Advertising, PR, Marketing, Technology – or if you own your own business – then the Got Social Media conference is for you.
Bringing together some of the top minds in Social Media, Technology, Design, and Marketing – Got Social Media is a one-day event covering topics like: Social Media for Businesses, Women in Social Media, Social Media Technology Platforms, and more.
I’ll be giving a presentation: “We’re Connected, Now What?” discussing how to turn real-life behaviors into online social features
Here’s my description:
Where do you get inspiration for online social features? One approach is to copy or offer a variation on something someone else has already created. But this approach lacks vision and often results in ‘me-too’ applications. A better approach is to look at real-world social interactions, and then translate these into online social features. And where better to observe these interactions than someplace like the mall, college campus, or conference?
We’ll spend the first half of this presentation looking at some different ways that natural human and social behaviors have guided product development— and ‘filled the well’ with original new feature requests. Then, we’ll apply this approach in a workshop type environment to generate some of our own innovative social media ideas.
To be honest, this is one the most difficult talks I’ve ever had the pleasure (or agony?) to prepare. I think it’s because it’s one of those ‘Well, duh!’ topics that is rather obvious when you say it, yet few people (in my experience) approach work in this manner. In fact, Joshua Porter is one of the only people I’ve come across who regularly writes on this topic. While I’m very excited to be presenting this, I’m also a bit curious about how the topic will come across and be received. We’ll see! I’ll post the slides and resources I came across after the presentation.
Kudos to Erica Ogrady and Kelsey Ruger for pulling this together. If you do register, mention poetpainter or Stephen P. Anderson for $15 off your ticket price.
Add a comment!Slides from My 'Star Wars' Presentation
Posted 151 days ago / 5 Comments
As promised, here are the slides from my Star Wars and UX presentation:
To everyone who made it out, thank you. It was a personal pleasure to pull together this presentation. Star Wars and Design are two of my favorite topics. To be able to join them in an interesting and relevant way— well, thank you for indulging me! Also, special thanks to Ryan Freitas, whose presentation at UX Week comparing cooking and design inspired me to dust off this idea.
For those viewing the slides only, much is lost without the commentary. At this time, there are no plans to add audio. However, I will remedy this if I give the presentation again in a public venue.
Enjoy!
Add a comment!Star Wars and User Experience Design?
Posted 159 days ago / 4 Comments
For those of you in the Dallas/Fort Worth area, I’ll be speaking tomorrow night at refresh. The topic? Star Wars and UX. No, I won’t be quoting Yoda (“Hard to see the dark side is”). Rather, I’ll be looking at the movie as a case study for entrepreneurial endeavors—exploring lessons we can learn from the making of the original Star Wars movie. Here’s the description:
The Force Behind Star Wars: Turning Design Ideas into Reality
You’ve got an idea. Maybe it’s a new idea for a web application. Maybe it’s a new product idea you need to push through your organization. The question is: How do you turn an idea into reality?
To answer this question, we’ll look at the making of Star Wars. We’ll look behind the scenes at what it took to get George Lucas’s space fantasy from script to screen. From assembling the right team to navigating the Hollywood corporate studio environment to tapping into powerful universal patterns — we’ll look at a dozen lessons UX designers (and developers!) can learn from this adventure.
And here’s a sample of the types of things I’ll be presenting (thanks Mark!).
I hope to see you out there!
Add a comment!Encouraging Words...
Posted 180 days ago / 1 Comments
I came across the following comment in an interview with Robert B. Tucker (pdf)
Add a comment!What should leaders do to foster a culture of innovation?
I advise leaders to make sure they are creating an environment in which mavericks are tolerated. The maverick is a well-documented personality type: These people would much rather change the system than simply perfect it. Mavericks don’t “go along to get along,” they don’t “dress for success” and, as the vice chairman of Medtronic puts it, they are a pain in the neck to manage. But they are absolutely necessary because they can make those “ah ha!” connections that lead to solutions.
If mavericks are not valued and respected, they will leave the organization and make their talents available to a company that will value them. Or worse, they’ll go off and start their own companies and compete with you.