Post by Kim Bieler [1 favorite]

As if dishy eye candy Robert Downey Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow weren't enough, the new Iron Man movie is chock-a-block with cool user interface design. Surely interactive holographic CAD drawings are just around the corner, right? And a heads-up display in every window of my house?

Still, there's no tech like low-tech. I think I fell in love when the hero sand-casts a titanium o-ring while being held captive in an Afghan cave.

-- Kim

Post by Jorge Arango [1 favorite]

Hi Michael,

On May 2, 2008, at 10:02 AM, Michael Dunn wrote:

> I am looking for resources
> that might aid me in this- books, web articles, powerpoint or keynote
> presentations, etc. I've already compiled a small collection of
> such, but
> would like to pick the collective brain on this matter. Any
> suggestions?

In my company we've tried different approaches to this issue. One that we've found particularly useful is to do old-fashioned design critiques -- we gather around the projector and look at designs we like / don't like, and then analyze them (sometimes down to the code level). Team members are welcome to suggest sites they like or don't like; this helps make the discussion more relevant to them. Of course, this assumes that there's a senior member of the team willing to serve as mentor to the process.

Another fun technique is to watch design-oriented movies together, and then discuss them and how they relate to our work. My team and I have enjoyed Helvetica, Sketches of Frank Gehry, and a few others. The cool thing about this exercise is that few of these movies talk specifically about design for the web, but design is design, and we can find different ways of thinking about some of the problems we're facing.

Hope this helps...

-- Jorge Arango home: http://jarango.com blog: http://jarango.com/en/blog work: http://bootstudio.com

Post by Will Evans [1 favorite]

Thomas – first,

faceted search/navigation is one possible technique to use – but it is not a panacea. There are many types of techniques available (federated, for instance), which is why you must really start from the problem space definition (area of concern), and do the user research to find out the predominate information seeking behavior your users are going to be employing to achieve their goals. That said – I'll start by giving you some research papers you really should read, proceed to some ideas about why facets can work, what you should thing about, and follow by some examples.

*Some research:*

Semantic Search *http://tinyurl.com/5ovz4u*

Dynamic Taxonomies and guided navigation *http://tinyurl.com/6ah9kz*

The Design of Browsing and berrypicking techiques for the online search interface. *http://tinyurl.com/2lyafa*

*More:*

Information scent as a driver of Web behavior graphs.

Proceedings of the Conference on Human factors in computing systems CHI '01 Association for Computing Machinery. By Card, Stuart K., Peter Pirolli

Sorting out searching: a user-interface framework for text searches Communications of the ACM Ben Shneiderman, Donald Byrd, W. Bruce Croft

A User-interface framework for text searches http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january97/retrieval/01shneiderman.html D-Lib Magazine Ben Shneiderman, Donald Byrd, W. Bruce Croft

------

Why do facets work for e-commerce:

- Increased findability leads to increased business results - More people find what they're looking for – faster – thus improving conversion rates - Increased customer satisfaction and loyalty - Decreased customer service costs - Opportunities for targeted merchandising - Up-selling based on selected facets (similar attributes might mean affinities in the customer's minds) - Cross Selling based on selected facets

The faceted interface is only as good as what lies behind it – this means implementation of a faceted navigation for e-commerce or anything else WILL FAIL unless the IA work is done up front – this can be daunting…you need:

· Good metadata

· Useful

· Accurate

· Clear

· User-centered taxonomy and labeling (test, test, test!)

· Good search engine

· Relevancy

· Recency

· Thesaurus (synonyms, acronyms, abbreviations, stemming, multiple spellings variants, stop words)

And this will do you no good if your facets aren't even noticed – so from a UI perspective you need to think about:

· Placement

· Prominence

· Connection to results

· Typography

· Use of whitespace

*Some Examples: * PCs: PCConnection Books: Barnes and Noble Music: Tower Records Jobs: CareerBuilder Resaurants: Citysearch Recipes: Epicurious Tools: HomeDepot Travel: Kayak.com**

Things to think about:

· What facets should you surface to the UI?

· What order should the facets appear in

· Make sure there is normalization across categories and facets – this can be time consuming

· Look at your log files (past user behavior can tell a lot about user information seeking behavior

· Click-path and feature usage

· Search Terms

· Talk with your users, then talk with them again – and try to get some that can come back and review prototypes

· Use Interviews

· User Surveys

· Use contextual observation

This is just a start to some things to consider and review. Go to Peter Morville's site on Search Design Patters to review alternatives, as well as examples of faceted search/navigation:

http://www.findability.org/archives/000194.php

Hope this helps,

-- ~ will

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

Will Evans | User Experience Architect tel +1.617.281.1281 | will at semanticfoundry.com

>
>
>
>
>
>
> Apr 29, 2008 kl. 10:01 PM skrev Thomas Marks:
>
>
>
>
> I am looking for information on Layered (Faceted) Navigation
>
>
> techniques, especially in regards to e-commerce.
>
>
>
>
>
> I see this similar type of navigation working very differently between
>
>
> most sites out there.
>
>
>
>
>
> I was wondering if there were any favorites out there, or any
>
>
> research/
>
>
> user studies that might assist in developing a best practice for this.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
>
>
> Thomas Marks
>
>

Post by Will Evans [1 favorite]

Thomas – first, faceted search/navigation is one possible techinique to use – but it is not a panacea. There are many types of techniques available (federated, for instance), which is why you must really start from the problem space definition (area of concern), and do the user research to find out the predominate information seeking behavior your users are going to be employing to achieve their goals. That said – I'll start by giving you some research papers you really should read, proceed to some ideas about why facets can work, what you should thing about, and follow by some examples.

Some research:

Semantic Search

*http://tinyurl.com/5ovz4u*

Dynamic Taxonomies and guided navigation

*http://tinyurl.com/6ah9kz*

The Design of Browsing and berrypicking techiques for the online search interface.

*http://tinyurl.com/2lyafa*

------

Why do facets work?

Increased findability leads to increased business results

• More people find what they're looking for – faster – thus improving conversion rate

• Increased customer satisfaction and loyalty

• Decreased customer service cost

Opportunities for targeted merchandising

• Up-selling based on selected facets (similar atributes might mean affinities in the customers mind)

• Cross-selling based on selected facets

• Each facet selected is valuable customer data (these are attributes customers are saying they are interested in!)

The faceted interface is only as good as what lies behind it – this means implemenation of a faceted navigation for e-commerce or anything else WILL FAIL unless the IA work is done up front – this can be daunting….

• Good metadata

• Useful

• Accurate

• Clear

• User-centered taxonomy and labeling (test, test, test!)

• Good search

• Relevancy

• Thesaurus (synonyms, acronyms, abbreviations, stemming, spelling variants, stop words)

Your goal should be: Ensure users will notice the facets in the first place

• Placement

• Prominence

• Connection to results

Some Examples:

PCs: PCConnection

Books: Barnes and Noble

Music: Tower Records

Jobs: CareerBuilder

Resaurants: Citysearch

Recipes: Epicurious

Tools: HomeDepot

Travel: Kayak.com

Things things to think about:

• What facets should appear?

• What order should the facets appear in?

• Make sure there is normalization across categories for attributes – this can be time consuming

• Looking at your logs (past user behavior can tell a lot about user information seeking behavior)

• Click paths and feature usage

• Search terms

• Talk with your users, then talk to them again – and try to get some that can come back and review prototypes

• Interviews

• Survey

• Minimize information overload

• Never allow

This is just a start to some things to consider and review. Go to Peter Morville's site on Search Design Patters to review alternatives, as well as examples of faceted search/navaition:

http://www.findability.org/archives/000194.php

Hope this helps, -- ~ will

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

Will Evans | User Experience Architect tel +1.617.281.1281 | will at semanticfoundry.com

Post by Dan [1 favorite]

This is a great article about faceted navigation and may help

http://www.digital-web.com/articles/user_interface_implementations_of_faceted_browsing/

On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Johan Sj&#246;strand < johan.sjostrand at hyperisland.se
> wrote:

> I asked about this a while ago:
> <http://www.ixda.org/discuss.php? post=23190&amp;search=facet
>
>
> Best
> Johan
>
>
>
>
> Apr 29, 2008 kl. 10:01 PM skrev Thomas Marks:
>
>
> I am looking for information on Layered (Faceted) Navigation
>
> techniques, especially in regards to e-commerce.
>
>
>
> I see this similar type of navigation working very differently between
>
> most sites out there.
>
>
>
> I was wondering if there were any favorites out there, or any
>
> research/
>
> user studies that might assist in developing a best practice for this.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> Thomas Marks
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> 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
>

Post by Johan Sj&#246;strand [1 favorite]

I asked about this a while ago: <http://www.ixda.org/discuss.php? post=23190&amp;search=facet
>

Best Johan

Apr 29, 2008 kl. 10:01 PM skrev Thomas Marks:

> I am looking for information on Layered (Faceted) Navigation
> techniques, especially in regards to e-commerce.
>
> I see this similar type of navigation working very differently between
> most sites out there.
>
> I was wondering if there were any favorites out there, or any
> research/
> user studies that might assist in developing a best practice for this.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Thomas Marks
>
> 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
>

Post by Jeff Howard [1 favorite]

Based on Alexander's comment in the "Interaction Design in Europe" thread last week, I decided to try feeding a few IxDA threads through Google's translation API. Judging from the results, I think it might be possible to generate language-specific thread digests for the main discussion list.

Here are a few prototypes: http://www.ixda.org/digests/digest_spanish.html http://www.ixda.org/digests/digest_portuguese.html http://www.ixda.org/digests/digest_french.html http://www.ixda.org/digests/digest_german.html http://www.ixda.org/digests/digest_danish.html http://www.ixda.org/digests/digest_swedish.html

I'm not fluent in these languages, so it's hard to tell whether Google's machine translation is good enough to support the kind of discussions we have. Any native speakers care to comment?

If IxDA provided this type of translation, would it be helpful? The above list is just an example. I think that language-specific digests could probably be output for any translation Google supports.

// jeff

Post by R. Groot [1 favorite]

Dear all,

my question is simple in its former but probably less so in its answer. Therefore I would like to ask you all for input on the following:

--
> How to start creating an awareness of the need for Interaction (/user experience) design in a corporate IT consultancy/developer/implementor company?

Background: I am an Interaction Designer myself and work for such a company. We consult, develop and implement IT. But within this there is as good as no attention or interest for IxD/UX. If you have good (or bad) experiences with this, built businesscases for such a situation or have thougts about how to go about or what to take into account, I would be very interested in hearing about it!

With kind regards, Rein Groot

Post by Scott Berkun [1 favorite]

Eye-tracking has the same trap as all data collection - if you're not sure how the data will enable you to make better decisions, having reems of it doesn't help much. Depending on the kind of UI being designed, different levels of data are more useful than others. Eye-tracking gives you information about *everything* the user looks at in mili-second increments - will that be more useful in recognizing issues and evaluating a design than standard measures like time on task, errors, and success rates for tasks? Often the answer is no.

There are plenty of other usability data collection methods thave have specialized use: for example keystroke level recording and GOMS analysis also provide highly detailed data that is great for some design problems but overkill for most. I don't know of a single design firm or software company that has invested in eye-tracking that uses the tool regularly. In special cases it's poweful (Say a Heads-up display for the F-17, or Mac Finder, complex high use items where miliseconds matter), but generally it provides data that doesn't much help answer the design and research questions designers have.

There are some compilations of general findings from eye-tracking, but as interesting as they are they don't suggest changes or improvements so much as offer validation of concepts many designers already use. http://www.poynterextra.org/eyetrack2004/main.htm. It's great that someone has done this, and it's cool looking data, but the information found tends to be general enough that few are motivated to repeat the studies to see if their specific web-pages or software deviates from these typical saccade patterns.

Lastly, eyetracking tools are flat out expensive. This means it's harder to find people experienced with the tools, and it takes more time and money to interpret data that comes out of those studies.

-Scott

Scott Berkun www.scottberkun.com

----- Original Message ----- From: "Andre Charland" <andre.charland at gmail.com
> To: <discuss at ixda.org
> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 3:11 PM Subject: [IxDA Discuss] Is Eye Tracking too expensive or complicated?

Hey All,

I just put together about Eye Tracking (http://www.insideria.com/2008/04/is-eye-tracking-out-of-reach.html) but I thought I'd put the question out to the list:

"Why isn't eye tracking used more in design and testing of rich internet applications? "

Post by Rob Tannen [1 favorite]

It does have value as a secondary diagnostic tool. In the context of usability testing, eye tracking does not determine the presence of a usability problem, but helps determine what led to that problem in conjunction with performance data, faciliator observations and user self-reporting.

For example, different people may fail a task for different reasons that eye tracking can reveal - overlooking a critical instruction versus reading it but failing to understand it. In some cases users can tell you this reliably, in others they can't.

Also, eye tracking provides a comparative metric between designs that are equivalent on other performance measures. For example, Design A may require greater visual scanning or workload than Design B, so all other things being equal, Design A might be the better option.

Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss? post=28208

Post by Jeff Howard [1 favorite]

Try Raph Koster's Theory of Fun http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Game-Design-Raph-Koster/dp/1932111972

// jeff

Kunal wrote:
> I am trying to gather references, study material,
> examples in interaction design on the theme - 'Funology
> in Interaction Design'.

Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss? post=28042

Post by Caroline Jarrett [1 favorite]

>From Jose E.

: Can you point to a really well designed and useful FAQ pages or some : related article?

I wrote an article about how to design good FAQs at: http://www.usabilitynews.com/news/article3724.asp

best,

Caroline Jarrett caroline.jarrett at effortmark.co.uk 01525 370379

Effortmark Ltd Usability - Forms - Content

Post by Morten Hjerde [1 favorite]

I'm currently thinking a lot about spatial reasoning and spatial memory related to small screens.

There is a lot of work done on spatial reasoning by the Gestalt psychologists. I'm familiar with the "gestalt principles" (the little education I have is in typography). But I haven't found much on spatial memory. I found an article by Gabriel White in *Interactions* about the MotoFone with some discussion on spatial and gestural memory.

Does anyone know about additional resources or research on spatial memory?

-- Morten Hjerde http://sender11.typepad.com

Post by Christian Sosa-Lanz [1 favorite]

We use JIRA and it has a fairly good UI. What I have seen with a lot of companies is that they invest heavily in RM tools but they run into too much overhead, particularly around the traceability area. I know I'm preaching to the choir, but some tools have such a bad UI that they fail completely. JIRA seams to be flexible enough to accommodate existing process and has some good reporting/graphing tools.

Post by David Malouf [1 favorite]

ISO updated their standard on Usability and now call it a standard on *User Experience*. I caught the news off of Mark Vanderbeeken's site: http://www.experientia.com/blog/new-iso-usability-standard-defines-user-experience/ There is a link to the committee chair in that blog post.

I kinda find the whole thing amusing.

-- dave

-- David Malouf http://synapticburn.com/ http://ixda.org/ http://motorola.com/

Post by Jeff Hendy [1 favorite]

Hi Everybody,

I'm looking for a history book on interaction. Something that starts with what would be considered the first UI (punch cards, maybe? ) and moves up through command line interfaces, console based menu interfaces, introduction of GUIs and WIMP interaction, and closing with current trends. Ideally, this book would cover key design decisions at each step, including what was gained and lost, and why the losses were considered acceptable.

Does such a thing exist? If not, does anybody have suggestions on how to find this information other than digging up old CHI papers and following references until I get to the beginning of (UI) time?

Post by James Leftwich, IDSA [1 favorite]

The Interaction Design Association (IxDA) is pleased to announce that videos from presentations at IxDA's Interaction 08, held February 8 - 10, 2008 at the Savannah College of Art and Design are now available on the conference site:

http://interaction08.ixda.org/videos.php

This collection includes some presentations that weren't available on the Brightcove site, and represents IxDA's commitment to sharing this wealth of knowledge and insight with the global community. A special thanks to IxDA Board Director, Nasir Barday for his work on getting this archive compiled.

A Call to Arms

* Keynote: An Insurgency of Quality Alan Cooper, Cooper * Keynote: The Design Eco-System Bill Buxton, Microsoft

Practice and Skills

* Concept Models: A Tool for Planning Interaction Dan Brown, EightShapes * Concept Ideation and IxD Gretchen Anderson, Lunar * Don't Make Me Click Aza Raskin, Humanized * Conceptual Designs Susan Wyche, Georgia Tech * Effective Prototyping Methods Jonathan Arnowitz, Google * What Makes a Design Seem Intuitive? Jared Spool, UIE * Designing for the Other 99% Morten Hjerde, mBricks * Help Me! A New Approach to Support Interactions Doug Bolin, Avenue A | Razorfish * New Interaction Model for a Modular Personal Infotainment System Sajid Saiyed, Phillips

Thinking in Different Ways

* Keynote: Intervention-Interaction Sigi Moeslinger, Antenna Design * Design for Flow Dave Cronin, Cooper * Conversations with Everyday Objects Bill DeRouchey, Ziba Design * Classic Design Movements and IxD: Kissing Cousins? Chris Bernard, Microsoft * Hit it with The Pretty Stick Jenny Lam, Jackson Fish Market * Strategic Boredom Molly Wright Steenson, Princeton University * Device Art R&#233;gine Debatty, We Make Money Not Art

Interaction Design and Cinema

* Cinematic Interaction Design Sarah Allen, Laszlo Systems * Dramatic Features in Interaction Design Chris Conley, Gravity Tank * Self-Conscious Gaming Andrew Hieronymi, SCAD

Interaction Design and Organizations

* Interaction Across Disciplines Michele Tepper, frog * Experience Design, Convergence + The Digital Agency David Armano, Critical Mass * User Interface Design in an Agile Environment: Enter the Design Studio Jeff White and Jim Unger, JewelryTV

Case Studies

* Designing for SpaceTime, Building in No-Time Matt Jones, Dopplr * Redesigning Sony-Ericsson's Product Catalog Saskia Idzerda, Media Catalyst * Visualizing Radio Yasser Rashid, BBC

Interaction Design's Place in the World

* Keynote: Dense Notation, In Context Malcolm McCullough, University of Michigan * Ethics of Everyday Design Gabriel White, frog * Interaction Design for Community Empowerment Carl DiSalvo, Georgia Tech

About IxDA http://ixda.org

Founded in 2003, the Interaction Design Association (IxDA) is a member- supported organization committed to serving the needs of the international interaction design community. With the help of thousands of members worldwide, we provide a forum for the discussion of interaction design issues.

IxDA's mission includes evangelism of our field, innovation in our discipline, professionalism in our standards of practice, support for interaction design education in academic programs, and community building for our growing global community of interaction design professionals.

IxDA Discussion Forums: http://ixda.org/discuss.php

Post by Jonas L&#246;wgren [1 favorite]

Dear list,

I received several useful suggestions in reply to my recent query about shared whiteboards for distributed design sessions. I thought I might summarize my findings briefly -- it might be useful for somebody else on the list.

To reiterate, my spec was:

> I am looking for a setup to share a virtual whiteboard in
> geographically distributed design sessions.
>
> NEEDS-TO-HAVE:
> - runs on Mac and Win, or (better) platform-independent
> - supports free-hand drawing
> - imports bitmap files or screen shots to draw on
> - more than one user can draw simultaneously
>
> NICE-TO-HAVE:
> - runs without installing very complicated dedicated server software
> - freeware, shareware or affordable payware
>
> My intention is to use it together with audio/video conf such as
> Skype for a small project team (2-4 people) to run focused creative
> sessions.

And here are the options I considered, in alphabetical order.

Adobe Acrobat Connect -- full-fledged IP conferencing system, seemed very nice and powerful way beyond my little spec, a bit expensive for a makeshift project. us.ajax13.com/en/ajaxsketch -- drawing program, not a shared whiteboard. www.conceptshare.com -- great interface, intended for reviewing of finished concepts rather than for collaborative sketching. www.cumulatelabs.com/cumulatedraw -- no freehand drawing, only vector shapes. e/pop -- Windows only (according to Jeff Howard). www.gliffy.com -- no freehand drawing, only vector shapes. www.imaginationcubed.com -- no image annotation (according to Jeff Howard). Marratech -- free client for Mac, Win, Linux; meets all req's, has audio, video, chat etc -- full-fledged IP conferencing system. Octopz -- browser based; only one user at a time can draw. Persony -- only vector shapes. proofHQ.com -- mainly for non-synchronous proofing. www.skrbl.com -- browser-based, meets above req's in principle, seemed a little immature. Skype 3.0 is apparently going to have a whiteboard function, but it is not yet available for Mac. thinkature.com -- browser-based, shared whiteboard plus annotations, meets above req's but seemed quite unstable on Mac/Firefox. www.webex.co.uk -- full-fledged IP conferencing system, but only one user at a time can be the "Presenter" and do things like drawing. Not free. Yugma -- sharing desktops, one user at a time active.

Based on my review, my first choice was Marratech: It is mature and quite complete in terms of functions, and the Swedish university network has decided to support it which means that they provide free meeting rooms (= server space). Since the client is free in the first place, that would add up to a zero-cost solution of business quality.

Also, having audio/video/chat in the same tool as the whiteboard (rather than as a separate app or as a telco service outside the IP network) has a few advantages in terms of meeting coordination.

However, it turned out that we never got Marratech to work through the firewall used by the company I am working with on this project. Pity. I am sure it would be feasible for a more technically knowledgeable person.

On the other hand, it turned out the company had a corporate license on parts of Webex, specifically the whiteboard parts. So, that is what we settled for.

We have used it in conjunction with a telco phone meeting (hosted by Webex at the cost of a local call). It is OK but the concept of allowing only one user at a time to be active on the whiteboard tends to formalize the climate of the meeting.

I guess we will be using it more for meetings where we explore material that people have prepared prior to the meeting, and possibly to make decisions. Not ideal, but workable.

And the idea of holding actual creative sketching sessions remotely still remains to be tried out in another project, some other time.

Thanks to all list members for your input on this topic!

Regards, Jonas L&#246;wgren

Post by Rob Tannen [1 favorite]

I often see (and use) the terms Design Research and User Research interchangeably, although I believe they are overlapping, but different.

-Design Research: This is the broader term. It can refer to the study of design itself (meta-research, if you will). It can also refer to research done in the context of design, but that can include research on materials, processes, users, etc. For example, comparing different types of display technologies, from the perspectives of cost, power consumption or legibility are all cases of design research.

-User Research: The study of the users of a product or system (or potential users for a new one), that can include ethnography, usability testing, etc to inform the appropriate design of that product.

So according to my definitions, User Research is really a type of Design Research, and not all Design Research is User Research.

Is there any consensus on this (loaded question)?

Best Regards,

Rob Tannen, PhD Director of Research direct 215-209-3042 main 215-561-5100 www.bresslergroup.com

Post by Chris Bernard [1 favorite]

Andrei,

I appreciate your bluntness and your background and experience gives you a unique and compelling perspective but I think you're inferring things in my statements that I'm not making and perhaps I'm not being clear.

I don't think I'm stating that my vision is a reality yet, we're talking about the future. But it's a future that is an inevitability and it is one for the very facts you state. Things ARE a zero sum game today because there are only so many resources available that can build shipping products. This reality will change for the folks that do embrace the technologies that can let them more effectively target multiple devices and platforms with a common set of tooling and platform technologies.

It doesn't diminish all the big D skills that are required to get the right ideas in the first place or the knowledge that must be acquired to tune those experiences to different channels but it gets us a lot farther along technically than we are right now and in fact will enable us to spend more time defining the solution space (which with multiple digital channels gets far more complex).

When I talk about multi-digital channel scenarios I'm not talking about developing professional tooling platforms like Adobe Creative Suite or Expression Studio (Which for the record do indeed take about three to five years to get to robustness). But the barriers and expectations around consumer and enterprise experiences will continue to increase and those that continue to target only one platform or delivery medium may find themselves imperiled.

We can see this in productivity applications today if you look at Microsoft Office or Google Office for example. That single platform choice for each of those products (desktop versus Web) is not viable by itself, but a hybrid is. We also see that with applications like Facebook and most notably Twitter. We're also increasingly seeing that with Web applications and how tuning those applications for iPhones or extending their capabilities with APIs that allow the interface to be refactored into better experience with paradigms like Flash, AIR, Silverlight or WPF.

Many designers and developers won't make these investments and there's risk in that because others will and are and by the time many designers and developers realize these emerging skills and work methods are important many companies and practitioners may have moved so far ahead that it will be impossible for those that stayed behind to catch up.

Let's be honest. Will the technology wars ever really be over? Designers and technologists will always be challenged to learn new things (just like doctors or other professional vocations, those that obstinately refuse to will simply get left behind if they want to work in the world of development and production design and will not possess the intellect to understand the capabilities of market if they move higher up the design chain.)

We also seem to be dismissive of incremental innovation. Which is what we often talk about with products and services. It adds tremendous value to consumer experiences and not every breakthrough needs to be on the level of an iPhone or a Surface to count as innovation or deliver value. I to used AOL in its early days and ordered groceries online via a dialup modem. I used to book travel through a travel agent too. I have no desire to go back to any of that.

Chris Bernard Microsoft User Experience Evangelist chris.bernard at microsoft.com 630.530.4208 Office 312.925.4095 Mobile

Blog: www.designthinkingdigest.com Design: www.microsoft.com/design Tools: www.microsoft.com/expression Community: http://www.visitmix.com

"The future is already here. It's just not evenly distributed." William Gibson

-----Original Message----- From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com [mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of Andrei Herasimchuk Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 12:54 AM To: IXDA list Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Flex? (was and still is: What's exciting in Adobe Thermo? )

On Mar 24, 2008, at 9:47 PM, Chris Bernard wrote:

> What should be exciting for all of us is that having all of these
> companies vie for our attention creates a competitive environment
> that is ripe for innovation. I don't think I'd be dismissive of any
> of these new technologies at this point and I don't think we're
> talking about a zero sum game where picking one approach
> automatically discounts ever using another in conjunction with it.

I'll be blunt, Chris, as Doug knows I often try to avoid pulling punches.

While that sounds good on paper, it's sheer fantasy right now. It *is* a zero sum game because there are only so many resources in companies to build shipping software products. The amount of time and effort it takes to build a robust software product offering for one platform takes at minimum a year, often much longer. More than one platform? Forget it. Only a select few companies on this planet have the kind of money to toss at that problem and most of them choose not to because it's often a waste of time and resources.

Let's not even discuss "innovation," as 99% of the projects done with these tools are simply reinvented versions of past software products or ideas. It doesn't matter what platform or technology you choose: browser with ajax, flash/flex/air, expression blend/silverlight, java, desktop client. They all take the same amount of time in the end and they all have been done before to various degrees. And I speak as someone who has created software pretty much in every various capacity one possibly can. It's getting to be tiresome at this stage dealing with yet another language or platform or whatever flavor is "exciting" this year.

To do software right and do it well simply takes time, even if business executives think they are getting stuff out of the door in less than six months. They aren't. That's a facade. Sugar coating the notion of what can be released. It looks like a more polished product offering getting to market faster, when in fact it's nothing more than an incomplete beta. A pretty one I would grant you that, but incomplete nonetheless. The product isn't quite there yet and won't be for some time. It takes a lot longer to get there for real, often not until at least version 3 of any software product, long after an alpha and a beta, public or not, as well as versions 1 and 2 of course.

It takes longer to get the product right. It always will.

In the end, it's not the technology that gets in the way or makes things smother. It's often something entirely different in the software world. More often than not, it's the designers, engineers and product managers who still haven't come to understand the medium for which they are creating products, much less understanding their customers who are fickle and rightfully so about what features are right for them. And the ones that do understand their mediums and their customers know it simply takes time to get the design itself right.

No amount of slicing bread with a fancier, partially automated bread knife, changes that. Not Ajax, not Flash, not Expression, not Code Warrior.

> These technologies all have large audiences that can execute
> against them today and the ultimate success will be by those that
> can leverage the value of their ideas around creating great
> experiences in the fastest and most effective way possible.

There are no shortcuts. One of you -- Adobe, Microsoft, OpenSource, whichever -- will win the battle at large. That's the nature of business and of technology. The primary winner will dominate, the rest will be viable, but not to the degree of the winner. And designers everywhere will simply deal with whomever wins, as we always do with any technology that is required in our business.

Ultimately, I have no dog in this hunt. It honestly doesn't matter to me who "wins." As a designer however, I can tell you I'm done with "innovation" at a technological level. I'm done with learning yet another new thing which is basically the same as the old thing which requires me to re-learn a bunch of things I already knew how to do but now need to learn how to do differently but with some new set of annoying technological constraints that ultimately as just as arbitrary as the constraints I already deal with today.

There's nothing innovative in needing to draw a circle to make a button. Sure... drawing one as a true vector is nice. But innovative? Only if you consider that it's about ten years late to arrive and should have been more mainstream ages ago, I guess. But plenty of designers get along fine without the bells and whistles.

In software, we are doing nothing more than fancier versions of applications since Engelbart gave his famous demo in 1968, one year older than I am now closing quickly on 4 decades ago. Innovation for us will not come in the form of cooler technology that allows certain mundane design and engineering tasks to seem to be potentially faster or slightly more dynamic. It will come in the form of new input models and devices, like the multi-touch in the iPhone, or fake plastic guitars and drum kits in games like Rock Band, and new display devices with small chipsets that bring pixels way past the computer screen and onto all sorts of ordinary devices in our lives, regardless of size. It will come from what people do with that new technology together, out in the open, not as islands. Especially not as islands of people who stare at their mobile phones all day texting, doing so mostly in isolation even when they are surrounded by others.

New ways to draw buttons, or hook up a menu to a data row, or display an error message or dynamically scale a widget to some arbitrary screen resolution is not innovation. It's cool, and it helps us mildly in ways to create slightly different versions of software applications that are slightly cooler.

But let's not kid ourselves. That's not innovation. It's just technology. It stopped being innovative once it repeated itself for the third time (e.g., FidoNet --
> America Online --
> Facebook), but only slightly faster and different only in approach, but not in general use. (And yes, FidoNet and America Online were just as social and all that back in the 1980s and early 1990s to the degree things like Facebook is today. The audience was smaller, and the style of interaction is certainly different, but in the end, they were all about with keeping up and connecting with your friends, both real ones and virtual ones online.)

Innovation will come to the software realm when the technology wars are finally over, one of you guys wins, and then you get to define how to draw the circle, and us designers can stop learning how to draw it in yet another way with yet another tool, and hook it up to yet another back-end development platform.

My only hope is that day will come while I'm still breathing so I can finally get on with the business of design in the high technology sector.

-- Andrei Herasimchuk

Principal, Involution Studios innovating the digital world

e. andrei at involutionstudios.com c. +1 408 306 6422

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