Dustin Curtis, UX Design, and American Airlines

(apologies if this has been posted before - I didn't find it in the list archives)

Start here: http://dustincurtis.com/incompetence.html It's a story about user experience and American Airlines, both in the real world and their online presence. The main blog post links back to Curtis' original complaint about AA's horrid user experience, and to a response he received from an Interaction Designer inside the company. Who was then outed and fired.

At heart it's a small story about fitting user experience into a (big) corporate culture. Or not.

Best respects,
--Alan Wexelblat

JOB; Sr. Interaction Designer, req# 4832; Sunnyvale, CA; PALM; Full Time

Description

Palm is seeking a world-class interaction designer with a proven track record of shipping game-changing products. In this role you will develop groundbreaking mobile products, working with a cross-functional team from product conception to ship date to define the interfaces that millions will use every day.

The ideal candidate for this position has:

Responsibilities:

Qualifications:

Skills/Experience:

Education:

Travel:

When applying for this position, please also submit the URL of an online portfolio.

Submission Details
Please apply at http://www.palm.com/jobs and reference the Req# 4832

About Us:
At Palm, we're focused on creating instinctive yet powerful mobile products that enable people to better manage extraordinary lives on the go. Our goal is to deliver products that implement technology in a truly useful way. We innovate. We create and define categories.

Are you searching for a fulfilling career that will revolutionize the way our customers do business? Are you ready to affect change in the next generation of mobile computing and telephony? If so, apply for one of our exciting positions by visiting http://www.palm.com/jobs and entering the job title in the Keyword Search field. Applications received in any other format may not be reviewed.

We offer competitive salaries and an excellent benefits package. For more information on Palm, go to http://www.palm.com.

Palm, Inc. is committed to diversity. We are an Equal Opportunity Employer.

NOTE: Candidates who are not US citizens or permanent residents need to have authorization to work in the US in order to apply.

Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=47591

Sorry Alan:

http://www.ixda.org/discuss.php?post=47237 &search=corporate

Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=47591

On Nov 23, 2009, at 6:25 PM, Alan Wexelblat wrote:

Start here: http://dustincurtis.com/incompetence.html It's a story about user experience and American Airlines, both in the real world and their online presence. The main blog post links back to Curtis' original complaint about AA's horrid user experience, and to a response he received from an Interaction Designer inside the company. Who was then outed and fired. At heart it's a small story about fitting user experience into a (big) corporate culture. Or not.

Really, it's a story about how an independent designer doesn't get the world of big corporation politics. And, it's a story about how a company which doesn't like its laundry aired in public deals with employees who reveal stuff publicly.

This is not the first time an employee was canned because he spoke out of school. It won't be the last.

AA has a history of both being an innovator in experience design. They were the first airline to embrace mobile. They've done amazing things with wayfinding. They were the first with online checkin. They've done some innovative things on the web. Go back 25 years and you can see real innovation in ticketing and loyalty programs. (Don't get me wrong -- I'm not an AA fan boy. In fact, they are one of my least favorite airlines to fly. Personally, I regularly tell my friends to avoid them if possible. But credit is due for their innovative approach to IT.)

They also get bogged down in politics like many great companies.

From a design standpoint, there's really no story in the Dustin Curtis thing. Any of us could sit down and, ignoring all the political realities of a big company, come up with an "improved" redesign. But, that's not where the challenge is, is it? It's working within the constraints that gives design its real challenges.

There's nothing to see here. Move along.

That's my opinion.

Jared

Actually one topic of interest from the whole AA thing comes to mind. How to deal with the scenario of not owning the whole page. The AA employee spoke of various groups running different corners of the site. How does everyone deal with scenarios like that inside there company. Luckily I work for a small company so we haven't experienced that sort of scenario.

Sean

On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 4:47 AM, Jared Spool jspool at uie.com wrote:

On Nov 23, 2009, at 6:25 PM, Alan Wexelblat wrote: Start here: http://dustincurtis.com/incompetence.html It's a story about user experience and American Airlines, both in the real world and their online presence. The main blog post links back to Curtis' original complaint about AA's horrid user experience, and to a response he received from an Interaction Designer inside the company. Who was then outed and fired. At heart it's a small story about fitting user experience into a (big) corporate culture. Or not. Really, it's a story about how an independent designer doesn't get the world of [trim]

On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 4:47 AM, Jared Spool jspool at uie.com wrote: On Nov 23, 2009, at 6:25 PM, Alan Wexelblat wrote: At heart it's a small story about fitting user experience into a (big) corporate culture. Or not. Really, it's a story about how an independent designer doesn't get the world of big corporation politics. And, it's a story about how a company which doesn't like its laundry aired in public deals with employees who reveal stuff publicly. [...] There's nothing to see here. Move along. That's my opinion.

Jared

Your opinion is phrased in a haughty and dismissive manner. If you don't care to participate in the discussion, there's the 'd' key on your keyboard, OK?

It's my opinion, as I said in the original message, that it's a story about how UX fits into large corporate culture. And, yes, it's also the case that Curtis doesn't understand how the external face of the company (the AA site) is produced. But Curtis is (or was) a customer. And as you yourself noted, the experience that AA is giving its customers stinks.

Redesigning a Web site is easy. Redesigning the user experience for a big complex company is hard, even leaving aside the problems of AA's particular corporate culture. But it's an important problem for UX professionals to understand.

Or at least, some of us. If it's not important for you, and you already know it all, great. Mazal tov. But please don't piss on others' conversations.

--Alan

I absolutely agree with Jared.

Part if not most of design is a diplomacy challenge. Solving a design problem is relatively easy. Getting it executed is the real challenge.

The AA story plays into a myth about design as somehow living outside of the context in which it is created, and this often leads to solo designers pursuing quixotic endeavors and alienating themselves within organizations.

Sean mentions the problem of "not owning the whole page." For the solo designer, it as a problem. But I believe the better way to approach it is an opportunity to collaborate and in the process gain traction for your design.

-joanie

Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=47591

On Nov 24, 2009, at 9:25 AM, Alan Wexelblat wrote:

Your opinion is phrased in a haughty and dismissive manner. If you don't care to participate in the discussion, there's the 'd' key on your keyboard, OK?

Oh, the irony in that comment.

Cheers!

Todd Zaki Warfel
Principal Designer, Messagefirst
Author of Prototyping: a practitioner's guide http://bit.ly/protobk Contact Info
Voice: (215) 825-7423
Email: todd at zakiwarfel.com
Blog: zakiwarfel.com
Twitter: @zakiwarfel
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice, they are not.

can we take it down notch. we don't want this to dissolve into a WWF event.
~ will

"Where you innovate, how you innovate,
and what you innovate are design problems"

Will Evans | Director, Experience Design
tel: +1.617.281.1281 | will at semanticfoundry.com http://blog.semanticfoundry.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/semanticwill
aim: semanticwill
gtalk: semanticwill
twitter: semanticwill
skype: semanticwill

On Nov 24, 2009, at 9:25 AM, Alan Wexelblat wrote:

On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 4:47 AM, Jared Spool jspool at uie.com wrote: On Nov 23, 2009, at 6:25 PM, Alan Wexelblat wrote: At heart it's a small story about fitting user experience into a (big) corporate culture. Or not. Really, it's a story about how an independent designer doesn't get the world of big corporation politics. And, it's a story about how a company which doesn't like its laundry aired in public deals with employees who reveal stuff publicly. [...] There's nothing to see here. Move along. That's my [trim]

Indeed. If you want to design in a large corporation, you need to master back office politics. Everyone has their own agenda and thinks their own stuff is the most important and they will have all their reasons to back it up.

A much more informative article would be one that shows the steps needed to get real change. I'm guessing it would take probably one to two years to get there. Maybe start small with some usability testing, argue the on the front of improved customer satisfaction and fewer complaints. If you can build a solid base to work from, then you could begin to change things, one piece at a time. I don't know. But if someone has done it I know I would love to know how.

Brian

Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=47591

Alan,

This was brought to the attention of the list once before, but didn't get a lot of discussion. I recorded my own thoughts about it on my blog: http://designaday.tumblr.com/post/235729815/incompetence

In summary, I made three observations, each directed at one of the parties involved in the story: Give the benefit of the doubt. Know your limits. Respect your employees.

Best, Jack

Jack L. Moffett
Senior Interaction Designer
inmedius
412.459.0310 x219
http://www.inmedius.com

There is no good design that is not
based on the understanding of people.

- Stefano Marzano
CEO of Philips Design

There's so much irony and contradiction in this email that, well, I'll just address them below...

On Nov 24, 2009, at 9:25 AM, Alan Wexelblat wrote:

It's my opinion, as I said in the original message, that it's a story about how UX fits into large corporate culture. And, yes, it's also the case that Curtis doesn't understand how the external face of the company (the AA site) is produced.[]

That's just it. Part of UX is about understanding the business. Why, why, why don't UX people get this? A great UX designer, and I use the term designer loosely, understands the importance that the business model has in the grand scheme of UX. If you don't get that, then you fail right out of the gate. This guy didn't get that.

I think it's a shame that AA fired someone who cared so much about the customer experience on their site. However, that's where my sympathy stops. As an employee of the company and a designer, this guy needs to understand that there are things much bigger than his personal feelings and attitudes at stake here and should've considered the recoil of posting to a public forum from his company computer. Not too bright.

Redesigning a Web site is easy.[...]

Screeeeeech (sound of brakes coming on). Clearly it's not. Your comment above even blatantly communicates that. Redesigning a website of a global business is not easy. There are a lot of factors that come into play: business goals, customer goals, legacy issues, technology platform, available resources, time, budget, impact of the change, etc. We're not talking about redesigning the website of a local bakery here, we're talking about redesigning the website of a global ebusiness. Downplaying that is dangerous to say the least.

Redesigning the user experience for a big complex company is hard, even leaving aside the problems of AA's particular corporate culture. But it's an important problem for UX professionals to understand.

And part of that UX is the website. You're totally contradicting yourself here.

Or at least, some of us. If it's not important for you, and you already know it all, great. Mazal tov. But please don't piss on others' conversations.

Hey kettle, you're black.

Cheers!

Todd Zaki Warfel
Principal Designer, Messagefirst
Author of Prototyping: a practitioner's guide http://bit.ly/protobk Contact Info
Voice: (215) 825-7423
Email: todd at zakiwarfel.com
Blog: zakiwarfel.com
Twitter: @zakiwarfel
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice, they are not.

I think there is a constructive string worth pursuing here. Many many many designers (ux, ixd, ai, whatever) operate within large organizations, and many do it with a chip on their shoulder. And while counter productive, to some extent, when no one in that organization is listening, who can blame them. Design is across the board deserving of respect beyond tactical execution. Design as a strategy, and design as a profession are under utilized in large organizations.

For the responder, he merely picked the wrong venue for his venting and exposition. A public blog has enormous SEO potential that is bound to attract the attention of corporate PR watchdogs. Unfortunately this venue has much the same visibility. I have been (personally) criticized for exposing too much in a relatively frank discussion of conditions very similar to this one. I would like to think there this could be a place share those frustrations and a resource for finding ways to deal with these problems. But this is the interweb... and everyone can come in the door.

This story reminds me why I don't blog as much as I'd like to.

I read the response by Mr. X - NOT as a vindictive diatribe on the ails of his large company - but as a letter I have almost written several times. It's from a guy who sees his company's (and his own) work slashed in public, and feels the need to speak out about it. He felt guilty - both that his own work wasn't more apparent in his company's web site, and that his company can't move as fast as his impression of smaller, leaner companies.

For the record, many small companies (I've run the gamut from 5-guy startups to 120K multi-nationals) have many of the same issues as large ones, just on a different level and scale.

All companies have too few resources, not enough budget, too many ideas, and too few executioners.

The greatest mistake I ever made, working for my first big company (70K employees back in 1996) was thinking they were big enough to have solved all of the little problems. I couldn't have been more wrong. It took 4 years at that company, and another 4 at my next big one (120K folks) before this sank into my thick head:

"Both large and small companies not only suffer from similar problems, but they repeat them over and over again - because every company is comprised of human beings, all of whom want to leave their own mark on their respective organizations."

Over time, I have evolved a few mantras that (for me, at least) ensure my design work makes it to production intact:

It's far too easy to criticize from the outside, or from your own small silo in a very large company. Actually doing something about it is actual work.

I have no idea why Mr. X was fired, but it seems highly unlikely that it was for caring. Big companies are very finicky beasts, and there are a whole host of reasons why they control all communications very tightly. I'm sure AA's marketing and legal departments are filled with folks whose career is to protect the company's integrity and stock price.

Bryan Minihan

Original Message
From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com [mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of Brian Mila Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 7:06 AM
To: discuss at ixda.org
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Dustin Curtis, UX Design, and American Airlines

Indeed. If you want to design in a large corporation, you need to master back office politics. Everyone has their own agenda and thinks their own stuff is the most important and they will have all their reasons to back it up.

A much more informative article would be one that shows the steps needed to get real change. I'm guessing it would take probably one to two years to get there. Maybe start small with some usability testing, argue the on the front of improved customer satisfaction and fewer complaints. If you can build a solid base to work from, then you could begin to change things, one piece at a time. I don't know. But if someone has done it I know I would love to know how.

Brian

Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=47591

Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list . discuss at ixda.org
Unsubscribe .... http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help http://www.ixda.org/help

On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 8:23 AM, mark schraad mschraad at gmail.com wrote:

I think there is a constructive string worth pursuing here. Many many many designers (ux, ixd, ai, whatever) operate within large organizations, and many do it with a chip on their shoulder.

True. You see this with editorial a lot too. You also see it with paralegals. In fact, I think in any context in which one's job isn't the core profession for a business you probably see this. Staff at universities, etc.

-x-

-- Christian Crumlish

MY NEW BOOK: Designing Social Interfaces.
http://designingsocialinterfaces.com
Get It. Read It. Love It. Review it. on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0596154925/

One of the most painful adjustments I see in designers (and myself as well) is that when you move to a giant company and giant projects... change is often slow and the impact of your work is smaller. When you get 25 people on a design decision committee... the outcomes are often aggregate. While this can be disappointing, it is a mechanism that provides stability (read slow change).

As important as a decision to work in design or ux as opposed to product or some other area is, the decision to work in a large corporation vs a start up or an agency is critical and should be thought out carefully.

Mark

On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Christian Crumlish xian at pobox.com wrote:

On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 8:23 AM, mark schraad mschraad at gmail.com wrote: I think there is a constructive string worth pursuing here. Many many many designers (ux, ixd, ai, whatever) operate within large organizations, and many do it with a chip on their shoulder. True. You see this with editorial a lot too. You also see it with paralegals. In fact, I think in any context in which one's job isn't the core profession for a business you probably see this. Staff at universities, etc. -x- — Christian Crumlish MY NEW BOOK: Designing [trim]

I will try not to over-reply but since this comment seems to be directed at me I'll put in one response...

On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Todd Zaki Warfel lists at zakiwarfel.com wrote: On Nov 24, 2009, at 9:25 AM, Alan Wexelblat wrote: It's my opinion, as I said in the original message, that it's a story about how UX fits into large corporate culture.  And, yes, it's also the case that Curtis doesn't understand how the external face of the company (the AA site) is produced.[] That's just it. Part of UX is about understanding the business. Why, why, why don't UX people get this?

I don't understand what you're ranting about. If you're saying that "Curtis doesn't get it" then we're in vehement agreement.

Redesigning a Web site is easy.[...] Screeeeeech (sound of brakes coming on). Clearly it's not. Your comment above even blatantly communicates that.

Sorry, I used the word "redesigning" too loosely. I was referring to the proposed surface and IA improvements that an outsider like Curtis suggested - I should have said "coming up with redesign concepts." It is much easier just to sit down as an outsider and say "I think I could improve things in this or that way" than it is to enact such changes within a corporate framework. I think that's a large part of what Mr XX was trying to point out. If you think of the whole process of redesign, I agree it's not an easy thing.

[I said]
Or at least, some of us.  If it's not important for you, and you already know it all, great. Mazal tov.  But please don't piss on others' conversations.

in response to Jared's "move on" comment, which I took as a statement that the conversation should end.

[Todd responds]
Hey kettle, you're black.

I take this to be your accusation that I have similarly told people to end a particular conversation. I would like you either to substantiate that accusation or withdraw it.

Cheers,
--Alan

It's hard for an independent designer to get attention and showcase his talents or design perspective. I give Dustin a lot of credit for putting his work out there. And, at first, when the initial response from the AA employee came in, it was a kind of exciting example of how real, productive conversations about real, frustrating design challenges (including political, organizational challenges) can emerge out of efforts like Dustin's. In retrospect, it was unwise for the employee to allow the verbatim text of his email to be published. And, while it's not surprising or even "wrong" that the employee was terminated, it really is a shame that something that started with good intentions ended badly. I'm sure that Dustin feels terrible about the outcome.

But Dustin is not the first / only person to critique or redesign a public site as a way of getting attention. In fact, I just ran across these guys who critique homepages to showcase their commenting tool: https://zurb.notableapp.com/website-feedback/17215/TechCrunch-Deconstructed

To some, Dustin's idea might seem presumptuous and naive, and his work is very easy to dismiss as being unencumbered by the internal realities at AA. I think that's a fair criticism. But that doesn't mean it isn't worth mentioning, discussing, considering on a board like this. If nothing else, it's interesting that the whole event got so much attention...

Todd: The AA employee didn't "post to a public forum, " he sent an email to Dustin and then foolishly allowed it to be published anonymously. AA then searched its Exchange logs for the text in order to identify and fire him. Also, I fail to see what any of this has to to with the AA "business model." Dustin well understood the business but ignored the political obstacles in the way of creating a purely user-centric aa.com. In my experience, a company's internal politics often cause it to act in contravention of it's obvious business interests.

Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=47591

why not moderators here take off objectionable comments or warn people over here?

Best, .Kr https://flashactions.com

On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 11:02 PM, Alan Wexelblat awexelblat at gmail.comwrote:

I will try not to over-reply but since this comment seems to be directed at me I'll put in one response... On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Todd Zaki Warfel lists at zakiwarfel.com wrote: On Nov 24, 2009, at 9:25 AM, Alan Wexelblat wrote: It's my opinion, as I said in the original message, that it's a story about how UX fits into large corporate culture. And, yes, it's also the case that Curtis doesn't understand how the external face of the company (the AA site) is produced.[] That's just it. [trim]

On Nov 24, 2009, at 12:32 PM, Alan Wexelblat wrote:

I don't understand what you're ranting about. If you're saying that "Curtis doesn't get it" then we're in vehement agreement.

I'm saying that the majority of the UX community doesn't get this, which is just a shame. It's one of the things holding back this community.

Sorry, I used the word "redesigning" too loosely. I was referring to the proposed surface and IA improvements that an outsider like Curtis suggested - I should have said "coming up with redesign concepts."

Now that is more accurate and true. A redesign is a redesign, which is not what a few visual comps are.

Cheers!

Todd Zaki Warfel
Principal Designer, Messagefirst
Author of Prototyping: a practitioner's guide http://bit.ly/protobk Contact Info
Voice: (215) 825-7423
Email: todd at zakiwarfel.com
Blog: zakiwarfel.com
Twitter: @zakiwarfel
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice, they are not.

On Nov 24, 2009, at 3:25 PM, Alan Wexelblat wrote:

Your opinion is phrased in a haughty and dismissive manner. If you don't care to participate in the discussion, there's the 'd' key on your keyboard, OK?

Good to know what that's for. However, I keep pressing it and all I get is ddddddddddd.

It's my opinion, as I said in the original message, that it's a story about how UX fits into large corporate culture. And, yes, it's also the case that Curtis doesn't understand how the external face of the company (the AA site) is produced. But Curtis is (or was) a customer. And as you yourself noted, the experience that AA is giving its customers stinks.

I don't think this is a story about how UX fits into large corporate culture, since it's told, primarily from the viewpoint outside of the large corporate culture that doesn't get large corporate culture. While there may be a story about how UX fits into large corporate culture, I don't think this is it.

I'll try it again: ddddd. Damn.

Redesigning a Web site is easy. Redesigning the user experience for a big complex company is hard, even leaving aside the problems of AA's particular corporate culture. But it's an important problem for UX professionals to understand.

We're in agreement there. ddddd. I think mine is broken. Scheduling a Genius Bar appointment.

Or at least, some of us. If it's not important for you, and you already know it all, great. Mazal tov.

I think that's Mazel Tov. (Just trying to prove the know-it-all point. : ) )

But please don't piss on others' conversations.

When I think we're focusing on the wrong part of the problem, I always use a haughty and dismissive manner. I'm quite consistent on this.

Of course, if you don't like it, maybe your d key works better than mine.

: )

Pissing away...

Jared

On Nov 24, 2009, at 6:32 PM, Alan Wexelblat wrote:

[I said] Or at least, some of us. If it's not important for you, and you already know it all, great. Mazal tov. But please don't piss on others' conversations. in response to Jared's "move on" comment, which I took as a statement that the conversation should end.

For the record, I didn't say that the conversation should end. I said that I believed there was nothing to see here and we should move on.

Moving the conversation into a place where it actually moves us forward and provides new insights is highly desirable, in my mind. I'm all for it. Let's not end it, let's make it insightful.

Jared

On Nov 24, 2009, at 6:19 PM, mark schraad wrote:

One of the most painful adjustments I see in designers (and myself as well) is that when you move to a giant company and giant projects... change is often slow and the impact of your work is smaller. When you get 25 people on a design decision committee... the outcomes are often aggregate. While this can be disappointing, it is a mechanism that provides stability (read slow change). As important as a decision to work in design or ux as opposed to product or some other [trim]

In my experience, this happens commonly because the organization hasn't done a good job of building and disseminating a solid experience vision to work from. When we look at teams that are doing this well, having that vision is a key component.

The vision gives everyone involved to ask the question, "Is this specific design solution getting us closer to or farther from the vision?" The teams that focus on making sure everyone is clear on the vision spends less time designing-by-committee.

Jared

On Nov 24, 2009, at 9:57 AM, Nick Gould wrote:

Todd: The AA employee didn't "post to a public forum, " he sent an email to Dustin and then foolishly allowed it to be published anonymously. AA then searched its Exchange logs for the text in order to identify and fire him.

To be fair, we haven't heard AA's management's side of this.

We don't know if the AA employee had a record of reckless behavior. We don't know if there were other incidents involved. We don't even know if the story of discovering the employee through the Exchange logs is even true.

AA is a company that has union rules to follow. While the designer wasn't likely a union member, a company that large with those constraints typically has huge HR constraints. They can't fire someone on a whim, without proper warnings and documentation.

So, I'm betting there's more to this story than we know. I think it's foolish of us to reach judgements based on conjecture and hearsay about what happened.

Also, I fail to see what any of this has to to with the AA "business model." Dustin well understood the business but ignored the political obstacles in the way of creating a purely user-centric aa.com. In my experience, a company's internal politics often cause it to act in contravention of it's obvious business interests.

In fact, we have no evidence that Dustin's design is actually user- centric. Have you used it? Have you seen anyone use it?

It looks great. It smells great. But, does it, in fact, do the job it needs to do?

Again, it feels like we're jumping to conclusions here.

Jared

Fair points, Jared. Although in actual fact, in most states people can be fired for any or no reason - that's called "employment at will." There would need to be a process, of course, to validate that there was no discrimination in the termination and they prefer to have some kind of paper trail. In this case, it would be a no-brainer as the employee almost certainly violated company confidentiality obligations.

Dustin's design may not be successful, but it's not because he doesn't understand AA's "business model" - which was my point.

As an aside, it's disheartening that another IxDA thread needs to devolve into dueling minutiae...

Nicholas Gould
CEO Catalyst Group
v: (212) 243-7777 x203
f: (646) 390-5658
e: ngould at catalystnyc.com
t: twitter.com/nickgould
b: www.catalystnyc.com/cofactors
w: www.catalystnyc.com

Original Message From: Jared Spool [mailto:jspool at uie.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 4:53 PM To: Nick Gould Cc: discuss at ixda.org Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Dustin Curtis, UX Design, and American Airlines On Nov 24, 2009, at 9:57 AM, Nick Gould wrote: Todd: The AA employee didn't "post to a public forum, " he sent an email to Dustin and then foolishly allowed it to be published anonymously. AA then searched its Exchange logs for the text in order to identify and fire him.

To be fair, we haven't heard AA's management's side of this.

We don't know if the AA employee had a record of reckless behavior. We don't know if there were other incidents involved. We don't even know if the story of discovering the employee through the Exchange logs is even true.

AA is a company that has union rules to follow. While the designer wasn't likely a union member, a company that large with those constraints typically has huge HR constraints. They can't fire someone on a whim, without proper warnings and documentation.

So, I'm betting there's more to this story than we know. I think it's foolish of us to reach judgements based on conjecture and hearsay about what happened.

Also, I fail to see what any of this has to to with the AA "business model." Dustin well understood the business but ignored the political obstacles in the way of creating a purely user-centric aa.com. In my experience, a company's internal politics often cause it to act in contravention of it's obvious business interests.

In fact, we have no evidence that Dustin's design is actually user- centric. Have you used it? Have you seen anyone use it?

It looks great. It smells great. But, does it, in fact, do the job it needs to do?

Again, it feels like we're jumping to conclusions here.

Jared

On Nov 24, 2009, at 9:57 AM, Nick Gould wrote:

Todd: The AA employee didn't "post to a public forum, " he sent an email to Dustin and then foolishly allowed it to be published anonymously. AA then searched its Exchange logs for the text in order to identify and fire him.

Splitting hairs, Nick. He allowed his email to be posted to a public forum, Dustin's blog. That's a public forum (not in the usergroup forum sense, but in the use of forum as a public space). According to Dustin, Mr. X said he could post the email to Dustin's blog. You're splitting hairs here, but if you really want to quibble over a hair, then fine. I'll retract my statement of Mr X. posted to a public forum to Mr X. foolishly authorized Dustin to post his email to a very public forum.

There. We good?

Cheers!

Todd Zaki Warfel
Principal Designer, Messagefirst
Author of Prototyping: a practitioner's guide http://bit.ly/protobk Contact Info
Voice: (215) 825-7423
Email: todd at zakiwarfel.com
Blog: zakiwarfel.com
Twitter: @zakiwarfel
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice, they are not.

Todd, I don't think it's splitting hairs at all. You stated that Mr. X "posted publicly" - when in actual fact he thought he was remaining anonymous. These are two very different scenarios.

I think if you're going to accuse someone of being "not too bright." You should at least get your facts straight.

Anyway, retraction accepted.

Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=47591

If anything, this whole thing is an example of how Internet democratizes sales and marketing such as airline homepages, and how smaller companies have an opportunity they did not have 25 years ago, when AA did those innovations, and when it took a lot more muscle to reach people.

If I want to buy an airline ticket, and I go to an airline homepage, they have 5 seconds to impress me. Imagine two companies, one small, lean-and-mean, with great user experience. The other is aa.com. Guess which one I will choose? And will I base my decision on the seller's internal politics and complexities of change, or something else?

Maybe aa.com works great for their customers and their business purposes; we don't know. But we do know that design can affect purchasing decisions either way, and lean-and-mean companies are able to execute and iterate faster.

I don't buy what's said above, that all companies are the same regarding politics. Some are really focused on product, design and buyer, and some are focused on something else. Priorities and policies do differ. Some companies welcome and embrace the kind of public activism that Mr. X practised, AA clearly does not.

Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=47591

I have had mostly good experiences flying AA. The extra leg room in economy is always welcomed. As for the web part...

Curtis' redesign looks pretty at a glance, but I have been able to use the AA web site quite successfully. Their busy home page has never been a barrier to me. I just ignore the noise and focus on my task. Not to be a Jared Spool fanboy, but it reminds me of his talk about people's ability to quickly winnow their field of vision if the structure supports that, has scent, etc. It works for me.

(I am not an AA fanboy either. I am somewhat locked into flying with AA frequently due to my relatives living near DFW. I'm not always happy about that, and I have groused before about them exploiting that to up their fares. On the web front, I also dislike very much their use of red to indicate the primary button in their booking flow. I have actually abandoned bookings accidentally due to that more than one time. Doesn't red mean "avoid"?? But that has not been enough to outweigh the other aspects or drive me to an alternate carrier.)

-Weston
IA @ Capital Group / American Funds

On Nov 24, 2009, at 11:04 PM, Nick Gould wrote:

Fair points, Jared. Although in actual fact, in most states people can be fired for any or no reason - that's called "employment at will." There would need to be a process, of course, to validate that there was no discrimination in the termination and they prefer to have some kind of paper trail. In this case, it would be a no- brainer as the employee almost certainly violated company confidentiality obligations.

And, since we're talking about actual fact (versus any other type of fact), most companies have a process to protect them from litigation which involves written warnings, probation periods, and disciplinary reviews. None of this happens quickly. While companies can dismiss quickly, if there's no threat of imminent risk, they tend not to, to protect their ass/assets.

That's why I find this whole thing suspicious.

Jared

Boy, we really need to be careful when using idioms around you, Jared. Maybe instead of a usability guru, you should be an attorney, or Fox News reporter.

Nicholas Gould
CEO Catalyst Group
v: 212.243.7777 x203
f: 646.390.5658
e: ngould at catalystnyc.com
t: twitter.com/nickgould
w: www.catalystnyc.com
From: Jared Spool [jspool at uie.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 4:07 AM
To: Nick Gould
Cc: discuss at ixda.org
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Dustin Curtis, UX Design, and American Airlines

On Nov 24, 2009, at 11:04 PM, Nick Gould wrote:

Fair points, Jared. Although in actual fact, in most states people can be fired for any or no reason - that's called "employment at will." There would need to be a process, of course, to validate that there was no discrimination in the termination and they prefer to have some kind of paper trail. In this case, it would be a no- brainer as the employee almost certainly violated company confidentiality obligations.

And, since we're talking about actual fact (versus any other type of fact), most companies have a process to protect them from litigation which involves written warnings, probation periods, and disciplinary reviews. None of this happens quickly. While companies can dismiss quickly, if there's no threat of imminent risk, they tend not to, to protect their ass/assets.

That's why I find this whole thing suspicious.

Jared

On Nov 25, 2009, at 2:38 PM, Nick Gould wrote:

Boy, we really need to be careful when using idioms around you, Jared. Maybe instead of a usability guru, you should be an attorney, or Fox News reporter.

Sorry. I grew up in a family of lawyers.

It's hard to get lawyer-think out of one's system.

Jared

You can the boy out of the lawyer, but you can't take the... oh, nevermind.

On Nov 25, 2009, at 9:51 AM, Jared Spool wrote:

It's hard to get lawyer-think out of one's system.

Cheers!

Todd Zaki Warfel
Principal Designer, Messagefirst
Author of Prototyping: a practitioner's guide http://bit.ly/protobk Contact Info
Voice: (215) 825-7423
Email: todd at zakiwarfel.com
Blog: zakiwarfel.com
Twitter: @zakiwarfel
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice, they are not.

I was thinking (hoping?) that the epithet "usability guru" was going to make Jared all apoplectic and rant-y.

:-)

- Paul

On Nov 25, 2009, at 2:38 PM, Nick Gould wrote:

Boy, we really need to be careful when using idioms around you, Jared. Maybe instead of a usability guru, you should be an attorney, or Fox News reporter.

Hey, if Nick wants to continue with the delusion that I'm some sort of usability guru, who am I to argue with him?

Jared

On Nov 25, 2009, at 4:40 PM, Paul Sherman wrote:

I was thinking (hoping?) that the epithet "usability guru" was going to make Jared all apoplectic and rant-y. :-) - Paul On Nov 25, 2009, at 2:38 PM, Nick Gould wrote: Boy, we really need to be careful when using idioms around you, Jared. Maybe instead of a usability guru, you should be an attorney, or Fox News reporter.

On Nov 24, 2009, at 9:45 PM, Weston Thompson wrote:

On the web front, I also dislike very much their use of red to indicate the primary button in their booking flow. I have actually abandoned bookings accidentally due to that more than one time. Doesn't red mean "avoid"??

No, red does not mean "avoid". It means stop, and luck, and "this is turned on", and tasty, and rare, and wounded, and it's a primary color, and it's a Christmas color, and it's a Valentine's Day color, and you get the picture. And of course in this case, it's a logo color for American Airlines (and for the USA). If you have a "this only means one thing" definition of a given color, you probably have problems on the web beyond not finishing booking airplane tickets.

If you want to tag a single term to the color, I would say it means "pay attention to this", and thus may be a fine thing for "Hey, here's what you click to finish working on this web page".

-- Jim