--Engage!

What is an ugly interaction?

Today at work while working through a design during a scoping & requirements definition session with my internal stake holders, I found myself challenging my team because I felt the popular suggestion in the room (can’t really talk about the design by committee situation I ended up in) was leading towards what I could only describe as an “ugly interaction”.

I know when I come back to the office tomorrow morning, I’m going to be pressed to do a better job of expressing why I feel this way and what it means to be an “ugly interaction”.

What is sorta interesting about all this is that it is right on the tail of my discovery of a recent Jonas Löwgren piece on issues that effect the aesthetics of interaction design. So the concept of beauty of interactions was sorta on my mind today anyway. I’ve also been arguing heavily on the IxDA.org discussion list (check the web site here) around what it takes to be an IxD and why UCD standard practices aren’t really all that helpful or revolutionary from the position of standard design theory. So designerly thinking was also on my mind.

So what was it that was so darn ugly and what made it ugly. In this case, I’m pretty sure that it was the use of exception messaging when they really weren’t necessary. Creating a dead-end for an end-user when it REALLY isn’t necessary or even through an inelegant method throwing a human being into an unexpected and possibly undesirable flow or context to me is … well … ugly and in this case, even FUGLY. (Let’s just say its a not nice way of saying VERY ugly.)

I don’t have any general rules to derive from this design experience, but I feel it in my gut that there are collections of interaction types and points that when composed together just create ugly interaction types. It is something to be care for and something you should trust your gut about. Be on the look out and heck report them when you find them.

Sketching ... It isn't just a drawing that takes less time

I’m teaching an interaction design class for SmartExperience.org right now, and I’m in the midst of my sketching lessons. Dealing with a smart group of UX professionals, here is what I’m figuring out about sketching. …

The lesson asked students to do 10 sketches about their project. Personally I felt this was a low number, but it turned out it was way too high for all of them. No fault to them though. Rather it is the fault of all their teachers and managers before they got to me. No one every taught them the importance of sketching multiplicities is toward generating ideas.

What did I get from the students? Most students actually gave me a quick drawing of a single idea. Some did 10 sketches, but just went deeper on a single idea, as opposed to generating completely new ideas.

As someone who grew up outside the design world, I totally understand where my current students are at, though there are a few who are design educated who still surprise me how they didn’t use sketching as an idea generation tool. It is only recently for me with my classes 3 years ago at Pratt in Industrial Design and now my work inside of an industrial design studio that I’m even beginning to incorporate sketching as a tool.

But, it is still sad that so many UX professionals still do not understand that a sketch is not the drawing/visual equivalent of an elevator pitch. That the “napkin drawing” is not really the practice of “sketching” from the point of view of designing. May 100 napkin sketches would suffice.

I’d like to offer some semantic clarification and maybe it will help us to move forward if we change terms a bit within our own corridors. Doing a quick drawing to communicate to people an idea should not be referred to as a sketch any longer. It is a hand-drawing. A sketch or the practice of sketching for designers should always have multiples, should be for personal or team ideation, and should be very rapid and rough, to the point of being trash before the pencil even leaves the paper.

Since discovering sketching as a tool. I try to do a lot more of it. The level of discovery through personal or group sketching has increased the alternate possibilities and have led to innovations so much more often than a linear singularity can do.

Everyone reading this, please sketch 5 completely new ways of laying out my blog. Be as wild as you want and email me your results. ;-)

Thanx!

-- dave

Announcing IxDA Interaction09 | Vancouver

Feb 5-9 I’ll be in Vancouver, BC, Canada @ IxDA Interaction09 | Vancouver—THE global Interaction Design conference.

See y’all there!

Are you Plurky!!!????!!!

Plurk is a micro-blogging application that is very rich, interactive and wonderinfully and thoughtfully designed. It takes the concept of Jaiku and Twitter which are so minimalist in their presentation (Twitter is MySpace-like and Jaiku is Face-book-like) and applies some really interesting RIA design theory around it. Instead of a "feed" it uses a timeline. Questions about scale have arisen, but so far that part is working for me. Further there is inline threading of comments on your plurks that end up with an inbox-like alerting system. There are still many bugs, around some email and IM integration points, but the spirit of the app is right on target. My biggest complaint so far, is that there isn't a version that works for my iPhone. There doesn't seem to be any APIs for others to hack out of it that interface or others that people may want or need. The 2nd biggest complaint is that no one is thinking about X-posting to Twitter, Flickr, Tumblr, Jaiku, etc. I'm at http://www.plurk.com/user/daveixd ... Become my friend and I get good karma!

[RANT] No longer an Expression Blend fan boy

What proceeds is my rant after dealing with Blend for the last year. As in many rants there is some emotion that leads to misinformation, but the bulk of the message has a huge kernel of truth. The short of it is that Expression Studio and specifically Expression Blend even as a 2.0 is just bad design.

Enjoy the rant.

I’m coming to the final leg of a WPF project and I have to say, I’ve lost the love. I have been both critical and supportive of the Expression Blend/WPF solution combination, but now I’m over it and I’m going to explain why and no more 1.0 excuses. They are now on 2.0. They went quickly to 2.0, but they made that choice to suggest that it was a big update, but heck it was barely worthy of an update.

Where did they loose me? I guess it all starts with the beginning. The marketing was so specifically targeted to designers. Real designers. Aestheticists. I believed that Expression Studio was a suite of tools for … well … Designers! The reality is that at least one of the tools, the main one you need for working with WPF, was the furthest thing from a design tool, once you got past the visual design of the tool itself. Sure it was canvas based, but it was basically like a Visual IDE I myself have been trying to design for developers when I was at Documentum. Adding fancy color palettes and objectifying style by itself does not make a design tool.

After trying to work with the tool for now 8 months I still can’t create a prototype with it. I’m told I shouldn’t be able to. WHAT!!!! A Design tool that can’t create prototypes? Like I said, they lost me in the beginning. But it doesn’t really stop there. I actually can’t style a button. Really. I can’t. I’m not an idiot and listen to my teachers, but every turn is leads obfuscated commands. Sure, it is there, if you think like the random inconsistent design decisions of the application. I’m really harsh on the design of this application. I think this is one of the worst products that has ever come out of MS. They should actually be ashamed.

There are so many places of failure it is hard to list them all, and unlike the iPhone’s list of many failures or short-comings, none of its advantages come close to making up for them. What is so sad is there is a HUGE promise in Blend/WPF/XAML, but it just doesn’t come true b/c the Blend tool itself is so horrible. WPF and XAML has its own short comings as well, but I’m not expert in technology frameworks, so I’ll stick to the design tool. Heck, let’s just call it a tool. It is really a blunt as a masonry hammer.

Like I said there are many specific issues with the tool and since many friends who are supporters of the tool are reading, I should be fair and let them know about why I’m actually really angry at this point.

1. Integrator.
The need for an integrator; the need for Visual Studio to bring interactivity to XAML (as far as all my teachers have taught me) is just really the beginning of the end. It basically means the tool fails for my needs out of the block, b/c it means I can not have any independence in prototyping out my ideas. I can do more in a tool like Fireworks (a graphics editing tool) towards creating interactive prototypes then I can in Blend.

2. List views (lack of datagrids, and assorted functionality)
I don’t know about other designers. But I design data intensive applications for desktop and web and if I don’t have something akin to the ability of creating an HTML table, datagrid, spreadsheet, etc. with the standard functionality associated with data lists that I can create easily without fancy coding or data binding (I need to easily be able to use dummy data). Again, this means I can NEVER do my own prototypes until this becomes available I the standard controls for Blend.

3. No “src” for layout controls
One of the basic premises that makes both Flash and HTML so effective as a prototyping tool is the ease at which someone can replace a panel (a frame or the source of DIV) with a simple script that says, remove X and replace with Y. (or hide, reveal). If this existed I could place ‘border’ layout controls inside of a grid and for each border set a src, or change the src when I want to change the content. In Flash they have the great concept of “screens” which allows for so much. In HTML there are just divs and frames and separate files. But even in Flash you have SWFs which are akin to user-controls in Blend, or movies symbols which can both be used as sources for different layout controls and easily swapped in and out and manipulated from within and without with the most basic scripting, which can be done easily inside the tool with lots of guidance.

4. Separating text style out of templates
This is hard to explain to the uninitiated, but basically if I create a button and I want to animate it for a mouse-over, well, I can’t in the same timeline change the border of the button and the text of the button. I have to do them in 2 separate timelines, and then in two separate action calls. There is so much more in the flow for adding style to the interaction of buttons that is so counter-intuitive I can’t tell you. I mean, there is an action called “make button” so why can’t they do what Flash does? (Has done for the last 10 years). A button is a type of object that has X states available and you can whatever you want to those standard states. Now Blend does have states available. But the separation of text to the “style” area from the rest of the button in the “template” area is just insane. Why? Further, there is a list of properties (which are separated from events, for some weird reasons since some seem repeated) and it is arbitrarily categorized, with each list alphabetized. So unless you think like the designer, you are stuck. (Was there really a designer on this software? Or was it all developers?)

In general, my experience of Blend from the get go has been one of obstacle jumping. All tools have a learning curve, but in Blend whenever I learn something new, instead of leading to an explosion of possibilities and new advancements that allow me to “complete” something, it leads to more obstacles.

Ok, what does Blend do well? In my mind it does ONE thing REALLY well. It has amazing layout tools and controls. I love the various layout controls. From grids, to stack panels to borders to wrap panels. All these and more are just great! So as a designer, THESE controls make the most sense. They allow me the most flexibility and structured control to guide the development process most directly. Because THESE controls are so powerful and easy to use, I think they set me up to think that all the rest would be just as easy to use.

I think the message of Blend has some nice takes, but in the end the whole concept of Designer < > Developer processes to me is always couched in developer controlled languages which is Blend’s ultimate failing. It really is a tool to allow developers to be better designers, instead of a tool that really let’s designers do their job better.

I think if I was to continue using Blend, I would require a solid month of daily classes, or expert mentorship throughout a solid project. Further, the tool and the eco-system needs to have more then puff tutorials and reference books. We need designer centric courses books and other references.

Sorry folks in Redmond and around the world who are actively supporting this tool. If you would like to invite me to Redmond (AGAIN) either temporarily or permanently (I hope my boss doesn’t read this) to help the team REALLY make a design centric tool and platform, I’m available and willing, heck inspired, to help out. Like I said there are pieces to this message that really make sense to me. As in all design, if the intent is not executed it is poorly designed and just bad.

Teaching SmartExperience.org class starting end of May

I’ll be teaching a longer reprise of the course I taught last year on Interaction Design for Rich Internet Applications for SmartExperience.org.

Course detail and registration information is here: http://smartexperience.org/classes/ixd-ria/

What I can tell you I’ve changed is:
1. A clearer course outline and instruction format
2. A defined project that every student is going to do
3. Clear outline of student responsibilities (Yes! there is homework!)

This is a 1/2 seminar, 1/2 studio course with lots of discussion. I’m looking for students who WANT to learn about IxD, engage their teacher and who are passionate about the work they do.

If you are a designer, IA, BA, developer, etc. interested in learning about both interaction design and the intricacies of Rich Internet Applications this course is for you.

And for reading my blog you get 15% off by using the code, “Synapse” (no quotes)

Enjoy! and Engage!

Oh! spots are limited class 1/2 full (18 spots total available)

Special thanx to Victor for arranging and for Chris Fahey and the crowd at Behavior Design for hosting the course.

Shared Google Reader

I’m not posting as much as before, but what I do do now is share a lot of what I find interesting in my daily readings using Google Reader.

To see the latest, just look at the ride sidebar that says “Interesting”. But if you want to you can go to my Google Reader Share page. There is a subscribe link there.

Enjoy!

Creativity: Allowing beautiful accidents to unfold ... AKA Serendipity

When I think about what makes design so special I often get stuck, but today it was loudly pronounced to me as a process of purposeful accidents leading to serendipity.

Today, while I was working on the visual design for a desktop application, I was “happy” with the design. Then by accident I hit the wrong layer in Fireworks and removed an element I had not planned to remove. The result? Well, I LOVED IT without that element and the design got pulled together after that on so many levels, I can’t really believe I ever went any other direction before this.

This event actually happened twice today while working on a comp design for my internal client so he can review it. Will he notice the difference in this case? Probably not. But for me, this subtle change makes the entire design hold together.

Related to this, one of my peers, an industrial designer, and I were speaking about a recent meeting with a vendor we are using to do some exploratory design work for us. It was the first time I had the chance to be at a review like this, and the total experience was great. I was really jazzed about what I saw, and after the weekend when I was able to reconnect with the industrial designer, I expressed my delight at our meeting.

His response surprised me. He was quite upset about it. What he said was, “They crafted the story too early in their process and this limited the breadth of their explorations.” It took me a while of back and forth to really internalize what he was trying to say. Ya see, as an interaction designer, we spend soooo much time trying to tell the story before we start the design process (research and what not) that I was taken aback by his comment and I tried to counter it. But in the end I really think I understand his point. ...

… The ability to sketch, to explore, to think unboundedly, without judgement is a key driver of what is the design process. Without this element, we are really only engineering solutions to fit the story and we can’t ever take advantage of our greatest tool—the accident.

So I encourage you all to try to create moments early in your design process where moments of serendipity can occur. Even when crafting a story (our main job as interaction & interface designers), there are lots of accidental pleasures we can take advantage of. Creating moments that allow you and your team to be open to those accidents is key.

Ok, I hope I'm back!

So I think I stopped the re-direct problem I was having. what a horrible world we live in when people have to hack sites like mine (I mean what! I have like under 1000 viewers) to try and increase their spam to really unethical sites.

Well, no one wants to read this, but I hope to be back blogging soon.

I’m very disappointed that the commenting feature isn’t working, nor is the talk to me link off the left sidebar. Just email me directly.

What I really want to do is find a way to move to a new piece of software. I’d like to move to WordPress. I generally like it better. My problem is that I don’t want to loose my content.

If there are some technical blogging heads reading this who want to make a few bucks and help me move from pMachine to WordPress (or similar) then shoot me an email.

Thanx!

-- dave

Interaction08 | Savannah is close to selling out

With over 315 attendees registered for Interaciton08, this 1.0 conference for IxDA is going to tear it up in beautiful and historic Savannah, GA. Our many sponsors saw the light and put their money where their mouth is, after we announced our tremendous program.

So … you better sign up quick before all these spots disappear and you are stuck just reading slides after the fact. Of course, you’ll also miss opportunities to argue with the likes of well, ME!!!! … ;)

You can get a taste of the community buzz in our "Connect" section hosted by Crowdvine--the conference social network guys.

I hope to see you in Savannah