Posts from — September 2007

is not the phenomenon itself but the discourse surrounding it. Terms such as “global warming” and “climate change” are becoming marginalized in the mainstream media, and increasingly in product marketing. I see PG&E commercials in California with light bulbs talking about us being able to stop global warming and I recently heard an E-surance radio ad that discussed discounts on energy-efficient cars that “reverse the effects of climate change.” The fact is, it’s not that simple.

I’ve had many discussions on how the biggest hurdle facing environmentalism in this country is simply to burst into the mainstream. In other words, I have always thought the secret would be to “make environmentalism and sustainability fashionable.” However, I’ve also joked that this implies it may one day go out of fashion. In a way, as I see the increase in mainstream discourse surrounding this topic, we are setting ourselves up for a possible downfall. Climate change and global warming are still not fully understood. Even among environmental scientists from various disciplines, there is still much disagreement about its source. So, while we may be noticing more and more effects of these phenomena that perpetuate this ideology, one day we may see less noticeable effects. For example, we were supposed to have an even more active and deadly hurricane season last year than the devastating 2004 season-but this never happened. This year has again shown to be a disappointment in that regard (though, I think we are still on track for around 4 more hurricanes in the Atlantic U.S.). I’m not drawing conclusions from this that global warming doesn’t exist, I’m predicting that many other people will. It’s often that I hear in everyday conversation someone predicting climate through the weather. “It’s so dry and hot today, this global warming is killing me”. This line of thinking is not helpful.

I no doubt want environmentalism and sustainability to become a part of mainstream American culture and media. However, I want it to be for the right reasons. My observations worry me that we have created this mainstream movement on false pretenses-that global warming and climate change have been proven to be direct results of human activity. These pretenses may one day disappear, creating a backlash against the movement. If we all start driving hybrid cars and still suffer what we “believe” to be effects of global warming, the public may lose faith in the “science” and essentially give up (for lack of a less drastic way of putting this). This, of course would be harmful to the cause because any climatologist will tell you it’s impossible for people to judge climate change about what they can possibly notice on a day-to-day basis. These phenomena are trends that must be studied over long periods of times subjected to numerous models (which is difficult and is a large reason why there is still so much contention about the subject).

Of course, I have no real support for anything I’ve written but it’s been an ongoing and growing problem I have as there is more and more marginalization of scientific, environmental terms. Regardless of whether my fears are well-founded, I argue that the public needs to be better informed on what these environmental terms actually mean before we start acting upon them. Let media and marketing push us, rather, to become better environmental stewards but leave the science behind the movement to the scientists.

This question still bothers me today. When I had to create a portfolio in grad school, our only real frame of reference was graphic design portfolios. These are obviously good starting points but they are showcases for visual design. They often look beautiful but this is slightly out of scope for Interaction Design (ID). Visual design is a part of what we do but the interactions we design are difficult to illustrate in a presentation format. I recall many design presentations in school using the format of following a user scenario. This was a highly effective technique given in this format but doesn’t translate well to paper or web (feel free to disagree). And that’s the problem. Many techniques we use to present our designs in grad school are difficult to translate to passive mediums. In grad school, we are futurists: proving a problem exists, communicating a proposal to this problem and finally demonstrating what our solution might look like in this constructed world. So as interaction designers we need to decide what we need to convey in a portfolio and how to convey it. Here’s what I found employers wanting to see and how I went about solving this problem.

What employers want to see from a potential interaction designer:

1. Design process – Almost anyone can display a beautiful product. What they want to know is whether you can do it again. You prove this by showing that you arrived at the product consciously and thoughtfully. Think of all the projects you’ve done with a team. If someone judges all of you by the finished product, you all look the same. But, you know there was someone who had little input. That’s why it’s important to separate yourself from the field by showing your design process. Note: I am not implying there is a “design process” as a universal standard-rather, you should be able to defend how you make design decisions.
2. Design communication – Can you talk about design? Design is not art. You arrive at design through communication, collaboration and an articulate vocabulary (all of these pertain to art on some level too). Of course, there is corporate jargon you will have to pick up at any company but as a designer you should demonstrate your ability to communicate in a “design language”.
3. Know your stuff – Okay, this one’s a little more crass but it’s vital. Whatever medium you choose to convey yourself to an employer, you better know your own material. You will most likely get grilled to some extent as to why you did certain things (not much different than a design critique) so it’s best to ensure you can discuss your stuff backwards and forwards. I got locked into an unanticipated conversation about my hard-copy portfolio in an interview and survived because I reviewed my projects. Some are 3+ years old and if I hadn’t reviewed what I did on those projects, I would have looked foolish. You study your material like your studying for a test.

Of course there are other things to consider in interviews but this is what I found specifically geared towards interaction designers. It’s a fairly new field without many of the axioms that other established field have to take into an interview situation. But the real question how can we (as interaction designers) accomplish the above in a design portfolio. This is an open question because I still don’t have a great method for doing so.

What helped me get my current job:

1. Resume – No discussion really necessary here. Though, the format for interaction design should be slightly different. I think it’s perfectly appropriate to highlight some of your big projects.
2. Blog – This will show that you are a reflective designer. You can give an employer a way to know you without meeting you. An employer may spend about 30 seconds thumbing through an online portfolio but you can really engage them with your thoughts on design.
3. Hard-Copy Portfolio – We’re all pushed to make a digital portfolio, which is no doubt, beneficial. However, in two of my one-on-one interviews, I didn’t have access to a projector. Giving the employer this to use as a reference is powerful. People want to look at a printed page more than a digital one (aren’t you sick of reading this on the screen already). When you leave the interview, they have a physical sample of your work that they can’t as easily ignore.
4. Digital/Online Portfolio – This is the biggest point of discussion. There is no good way to do it. Of course I believe this is a vital piece for an interaction designer to maintain (even after getting a job). But, given the needed material I described above, I don’t know how best to convey this. The link I provided above (and here if you’re lazy) is really effective on all fronts. The only problem is that everything in it is beautiful. We all know in HCI/d, we have created some flat-out ugly material. Stuff that’s much better to talk about than show. How can a designer reconcile this in a digital portfolio? Personally, I just had to omit some things, but I don’t think this is a long-term solution.

This is what I’ve found from personal experience. I’m curious to see what others might have found or any other proposals for how an interaction design portfolio might be constructed.

Linked
by Albert-Laszlo Barabasi

This book is technically outside the design realm but it has a lot of relevance to the field of technology and design. Barabasi talks about the growing field of network theory. He gives a good history of these theories and makes it relatively easy for an outsider like myself to be able to follow along. The book starts a bit on the jargon-side in discussing the mathematical theories behind networks and matrices. But he counters this by opening every chapter with a real-world example of the principles he is discussing. His anecdotes prove entertaining and useful in understanding how network theory helps to explain the world around us.

Barabasi see networks helping us understand the nature of order throughout many aspects of life–from genes to the Internet (which is what most of his work is primarily centered around). Briefly, the idea is that we must move away from looking at phenomena in isolation and seeing structures as interconnected networks. One example that comes to mind from the book is his retelling of scientists that were searching for a gene that causes manic depression in different areas. Each group of scientists found different isolated chromosones that were responsible. The reason, Barabasi argues, is that we should not view genes as isolated objects that control things. Rather, they work in a network and act differently under different conditions. This is aligned with my ideas of “systemic design” where designers should not isolate features of design but try to view them as a systemic whole (Malcolm McCullough talks about this in “Digital Ground“).

Barabasi also talks in great detail about the nature of networks and how the Internet is one of hubs and connectors. Again, he explains this well. At times the nature of the material makes it slightly difficult to follow, but he backs up the science with many examples. I often find many non-fiction books to be redundant but in this case the redundancy helps to understand the material. His anecdotes and exploration of the world of network theory makes it easy to abstract from. It’s easy for any reader to relate some aspect of their life to this new(er) way of ordering the complex world. More specifically it’s highly relevant at the dawn of the age of Web 2.0

I was just informed about Pangea Day, which is an effort to bring together films from around the world in order to “strengthen tolerance and compassion…to build a better future.” The idea comes from TED’s 2006 winner, Jehane Noujaim, who produced the call-for-participation video. The video itself is rather moving and the effort is attractive unique. The real power I find in this idea is its simplicity. As much as I read about global problems and work to create unique solutions I can’t help to be drawn to the simple ideas. Often we try to create complex solutions to complex problem but often that masks the underlying source. Is it possible that tolerance and compassion for other cultures can be achieved through films? Probably not. But the goal of this competition is to showcase videos that might serve as catalysts for future action. I will be intrigued not just to see what is produced by May 10, 2008 (the day of the worldwide broadcast of video submissions).

However, after watching Jehane Noujaim’s speech on Pangea Day’s homepage, I can’t help but feel like this effort is a bit misguided. From what I understand, the underlying motivation for showcasing videos from across the world is to bring a voice to the people. I will not argue that governments and media have long-quited the voice of the masses but I don’t know why there is this assumption that videos submitted by people will be any less-biased or agenda-driven. This viewpoint assumes that there is this global moral standard and that pervades the common person. Unfortunately, from a lot of these videos many people will be disgusted and offended by what they see. How will this facilitate tolerance? Simply opening the floodgates won’t ensure that viewers will react well. Additionally, this perspective also assumes that videos will be more or less unbiased and all-encompassing. The media and government aren’t the only ones who will purport to know the truth. In fact, my guess is that the Pangea Day committee themselves will probably have to censor some of the videos.

But, all in all, I find this to be a valuable endeavor. It was put together well and, if it gets enough press, should promise to bring a lot of interesting videos to the global fore. What happens as a result still remains to be seen…

It doesn’t take much for me to get inspired about design but it’s rare that I can find nothing critical to say. I had the opportunity to see Cameron Sinclair speak about Architecture for Humanity today. It was a fantastic presentation given by an amazing architect doing incredible things. If you’re familiar with Habitat for Humanity, you can probably guess what his group does. This group creates architectural designs for under-served areas such as the Gulf Coast after Katrina, Sub-Saharan Africa, and areas hit by the tsunami of ’04.

The talk was obviously inspiring for the work that was being done. But what I was most impressed with was the reflection upon their own design process and how it unfolds in this context. At one point he put up a slide just showing the principles they have taken away from these experiences and I found a lot of intersection with my own thoughts on HCI in the developing world. The group’s reflections seemed well-founded with an underlying concern for culture and geography. All too often it seems that designers in any field are looking for the panacea. This group “gets it”.

I found no room for criticism because this this group is practicing what they preach. They have had tremendous success in a lot of their projects. They have done so in many locales with varying cultures. There design solutions are all unique. Additionally, there is a strong emphasis on participatory involvement on the part of those that will live in these dwellings. They have realized that success will always rely on the stake that users will have in the solutions (he also mentioned that they do not allow sponsor’s names to be written anywhere on the structures they help fund).

Finally, the most interesting portion of his discussion was his emphasis on learning from the group’s failures. He didn’t spend much time dwelling on the point but it was an important one nonetheless. On the website for his current project: the Open Architecture Network the group has even listed failures (he showed this in the presentation but haven’t found it yet online). Everyone preaches that mistakes teach more than successes but this is an example of a group that actually practices it. It is, no doubt, hard to admit failure, but in the end we can all benefit from this humility as design community.