Category — thoughts

I’ve had several experiences with user researchers on the products I design. At first, my design team had a dedicated “usability engineer” that worked on our team. That person has since moved on, leaving us designers to conduct research ourselves. Over the past year, we’ve used two different user researchers. One was an outside firm and the other someone we’ve brought on to our team recently. These experiences prompted me to tweet recently about my thoughts on how user researchers should influence the design process—specifically in the preliminary research phase. 140 characters didn’t allow me to express myself, so I’m taking this opportunity to clarify my thoughts on what a user researcher’s role should be in the design process during the research phase. There are a lot of things I could discuss in the area of research and design but I want to focus specifically on the area of what a user researcher should be expected to deliver to a designer.

Each company has a slightly different design process. For the sake simplicity, I see them as research (or discovery), conceptual design and prototyping, detailed design (spec), and usability testing. My company has had usability engineers with an emphasis towards the final usability testing phases, but more recently I’ve been lucky to get the opportunity to work more with user researchers. Their roles throughout the product lifecycle are still being defined, but I want to speak specifically about their role in the research ,or “discovery”, phase of the design process.

I mentioned the basic design workflow because I firmly believe that it’s ideal for designers to be active in each phase. But with the introduction of dedicated user researchers, this becomes more difficult. How much of this phase should be owned by the designer and researcher? In my current project, the researcher dictated the protocol and recruited potential users for site visits and interviews. Designers on the team gave input into the topics to be covered in the field. This process worked well. The struggle has been figuring out what to do with the research and who should do it.

The final deliverable from the researcher for my current project contains not only high-level summaries of user behavior and preferences (which I’m okay with), but an organized series of design recommendations. This I do have a problem with. First of all, researchers may not necessarily be equipped to make such design recommendations. Sure, a lot of us went to the same design school with researchers. But I bet you can think back at which ones were better designers and which were better researchers. Most design curriculums allow the freedom to drift towards either one. This means two people that have the same degree might actually have completely different skill sets. I for one know several of my design peers who are dedicated user researchers. The analytical minds are best at researching, the creative minds are best at translating that into a design.

Second, particularly in the case of using research firms, researchers may not have the product knowledge that you have. This is very specific to my experience because there are so many variables involved. For one, I work on software that’s been around for years. It’s also very domain-specific. As a result, this may not be such a big deal for those in web design or those designing consumer software that may be easier to relate with. In any case, it’s a definite disadvantage in my line of work because the insights gained from user research are only as good as the domain knowledge of the researcher. If you don’t understand the long-standing cultural differences between CAD designers and GIS mappers, the quality of your insights is diminished.

Last, making design recommendations as a direct output of research circumvents the creative process that serves as the foundation for any design field—the ‘magic’. I believe all designs should somehow tie back to research findings, but design should not be dicated by the findings. In other words, if I’m given a design recommendation, then what exactly is my role as a designer? If a design recommendation is meant to be a guide for the designer, then where’s the opportunity for innovation? Design recommendations seem to marginalize the role of the designer.

So what should a researcher hand off to the designer? My friend Chatree stated it rather well, “[a] dedicated researcher should be giving analysis of findings rather than design recommendation.” In other words, a researcher should provide summary and analysis without any notion of a potential design solution in mind. The rest of the conceptual design process should be left up to the designer. It is his or her job to look at the research findings and determine what this means in the interaction design. This plays to the skill-sets of each person. The researcher focuses exclusively on analyzing behavior and patterns. The designer has the freedom to interpret this in a way that makes sense in the context of their expertise of the product. This avoids the researcher misappropriating the research and the designer misinterpreting the research.

Please feel free to express your own thoughts and experiences in the comments because I’d like to get a broader picture from other interaction designers and researchers. There are many facets to the role of research throughout the design process, so remember I am focusing only on the discovery phase—pre-concept. I’m interested in hearing about experience with dedicated user researchers, contracting user research, or how you (as a designer) conduct research yourself and whether you find it to be the best option. Also, if you are a dedicated user researcher, what works best for you?

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.

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.

For my graduate capstone I am researching the role and appropriation of interaction design in rural areas of developing countries. As I research a lot of information and communication technology (ICT) projects or UNESCO-sponsored initiatives, I come across a lot of implications for what to do in the future. Most of these projects are failures but even the successes often cite this one implication: “The technology utilized should be affordable.” What the hell does that mean? Why would anyone consciously develop a technology that is unaffordable–especially in the cases of poverty-stricken rural areas. This doesn’t make any sense. To think that these ICT projects might fail because the creators did not consider cost, or that the major insights are to simply make the technology affordable in the future, is ridiculous. Why isn’t that common knowledge? Apple wouldn’t make an iPod that costs $2,000 aimed at college students so why would a developer implement a technology that costs thousands a year in maintenance in a village that has an average income of a few hundred dollars a year? I mean, Sony wouldn’t sell a Playstation 3 for…..okay, wait, that might not be the best example

So what I really wonder here is what is at the core of this ‘design implication’? In this setting I think what is really at play is that developers do not design the system/artifact in a way that makes the user capable of maintaining or improving upon it in the future. If the system relies on outside support it is doomed to fail because researchers and developer can only linger so long to ensure a project’s success. I read all too frequently that projects might be a raving success while the developers are still around, only to find that years later it becomes a dismal failure. The failure is actually amplified by the fact that when users become accustomed to a system/artifact, they change their activities to center around it. As a result, when it leaves, they are left in a worse condition than before. So my thoughts on this idea of “unaffordable technology” are that designs in these settings must be participatory and adaptive. Developers and support cannot be around forever so it is important that the designs can not only be learned by the users but mastered in such a way that the user then becomes the designer (see Acting with Technology by Nardi and Kaptelinin for more on this). This way, Users can take ownership and innovate for their own uses. From a participatory standpoint, designs can most likely become adaptive. In this sense, the design is possibly modular or it is malleable so that it can be modified and reappropriated in the future. If implementations have adaptive capacity then their usage will be more sustainable.

To most people I think that the digital world seems untaxing on the environment. After all bits have no real physical form that we can see so it’s counter-intuitive to think that have any physical value. However, the first law of thermodynamics would tell us otherwise. All the information being transferred across fiber optics cable is created by something physical. Beyond the energy spent creating the devices that power the machines or the production of silicon and other metals, the real drain I see now comes from the electricity used to power these bytes. For every new computer connected to the Internet, the power drain grows exponentially. Computers are no longer used in isolation so as the numbers grow, their effects grow exponentially in a large network.

There has been a lot of discussion about ‘information overload’ since the early 90s but to me it is a term that has carried little significance because it is poorly defined. Nobody is really overloaded when they get on the web. There are plenty of filters that keep information from simply streaming onto your desktop. Users, decide where they go, which sites they visit or what to search for. The real overload happens in that the meaningless information out makes these processes all inefficient. To give a counter-example, wikipedia.org has provided well-filtered content all in one repository. While the site’s sustainable efforts are seemingly never cited (most likely because I don’t think this was a direct goal of the creators), the site provides a model nonetheless. Before wikipedia, to find information about a country, I would use a search engine. This will probably result in wasted time and energy sifting through mis- or irrelevant information. Now, wikipedia has decreased both. When I say energy, I’m not simply talking about my personal energy but the energy that is powering the data transfer between my computer and the servers that host the information. I’m sure the energy wasted is not great but multiply this by the number of searches, and the effect is quite noticeable (I should note that I have absolutely no data…just a ramble).

Searching is only one example of unsustainable ‘digital practice.’ I recently came across an article that discusses the electricity consumed by electronic avatar. According to some stats and extrapolation, the average avatar in a virtual world such as Second Life consumes around 71% the electricity of a human! This is the first ‘mainstream’ article I’ve found that actually tries to put a natural cost on something digital. As I look at images of server farms like the one Google is building (I think this was in January’s Wired), I would hope that this happens more in the future. I am not proposing that wikipedia be a model for this or that Second Life is bad. Simply, more notice needs to be taken about how the digital is physical.

UPDATE: I have actually found a great resource that at least gets at part of this issue. Megan Prusynski wrote about some sustainable web hosting services that have more sustainable practices on the server side. She provides a great list on this topic. Green Options alone is a great resource for practical sustainability issues–it’s listed in my blogroll.