[IxD Theory] - The role of emotion in design
Post-‐class blog topic: What is the role of emotion in design? Is it ever okay to ignore the emotional layer and focus only on function? If yes, then when?
I believe the role of emotion in design is incredibly important if you’re trying to create the best possible user experience. Human emotion isn’t something that can be turned off. It is constant and it must always be accounted for when designing a solution to a problem. If a designer understands how a user might feel when they interact with the system, product, or service that they’re trying to create, then they can anticipate and build around the user’s needs and behaviors.
As an interaction designer, you’re designing an experience. No matter how simple or mundane, whoever is a part of that experience will feel something. That feeling could be a variety of things, from delight to empowerment to enlightenment to resolution. If you can craft specifically for these things, then the user will enjoy their experience. At the same time, a designer is likely trying to avoid creating anything that might cause anxiety or frustration.
I’m not sure if it’s ever okay to ignore the emotional layer and focus only on the function as a general rule of thumb. I suppose if you’re building a concept from scratch or prototyping, then it’s okay because you’re trying to establish basic functionality that meet certain requirements. If time is an issue, it is an emergency, or resources just won’t allow it, I suppose those are other times it’s okay to ignore the emotional layer. I might argue that if you create something that will never be seen or interacted with by a human being, then you’re not designing it, but rather building it or engineering it to serve some greater purpose. Of course that greater purpose will end up serving someone at some point, otherwise why would we build it?
I believe designers add most to the construction of experiences that inherently need to be meaningful to humans. We design around context to empower, enlighten, delight, or connect people. I think we essentially can improve anything that exists in the world to add value and be responsible to ourselves and the living things around us.
[IxD Theory] - The next frontier for connectivity
Post-‐class blog topic: What is the next frontier for connectivity? What will make it stick?
I believe getting everything connected online and narrowing the gap between the digital world and the physical world will be the next big frontier. Cars and televisions have already begun to be included, as well as household thermostats with the Nest. It may be a little while further before we see toasters and chairs connected, but as computers and sensors continue to get even smaller and cheaper, we’ll continue to see them included in those kinds of lesser everyday objects. This sort of ubiquity will be very sticky, as everything we do will be recorded and have an impact on other things, seen and unseen.
I’d love to see greater “connectivity” between friends and families in their respective phones. Right now we have telephone conversations and even video chat capabilities, but it seems to me that we should be doing this more on an even greater level. It may seem a little invasive, but to have friends and family show up in actual size and appearance on your wall would be pretty impressive.
I also think we could see greater connectivity between ourselves and our data, or the data trails we leave behind everywhere. Google and Facebook track us and are able to glean important information and draw patterns, so I why can’t we? If we had better access to our internet history, as well as the applications we use, the gps in our mobile devices, and the electronic data that already stored on a computer somewhere (such as our banking and medical records), we could cross reference them all and retrieve important insights that may change our behavior. An intermediary system that archives this data and is smart enough to sort through it would be required to make this even remotely accessible.
[IxD Theory] - Interaction Design is Democratized
Post-‐class blog topic: Why is interaction design so much more democratized than other design disciplines?
Interaction design stresses the understanding of the context: the systems, people, and places that are relevant to the solution being designed. This is because interaction designers are concerned with the intentions and behaviors surrounding an experience. Interaction designers must take extra steps in understanding who and/or what they’re designing for, which may require extensive user research to allow them to adequately step into their user’s shoes. Interaction designers must—or should—prototype and constantly iterate, including their stakeholders along the way because input from multiple perspectives will lead to greater insights and more informed solutions.
An interaction designer’s problem isn’t necessarily one with a clear answer. I would argue that other disciplines of design such as industrial or visual design are more focused on aesthetics and organization, rather than experience and function. An interaction designers problem tends to be more complex because the systems they design must change over time. The rules and standards for interaction are more behavioral and psychologically based, rather than subjectively based. This necessitates a greater understanding of the people who will be using the system.
[IxD Theory] - Divergence of Design
Post-‐class blog topic: Do you think design disciplines are converging or diverging? Consider analogous industries, such as medicine, to inform your point of view.
I believe design disciplines are definitely diverging. It seems that we’re coming up with new and increasingly specialized roles for designers every day. Medicine and bioengineering is the second biggest industry in the San Francisco Bay Area according to our design history professor Barry Katz, the first of which is design. He believes that there will be a great potential for crossover at some point point in the near future, and we’ll begin to see genetic designers, essentially shaping proteins and molecules to build things. Medicine already is a highly specialized and diverse field, but the role a designer might play is huge considering the fact medicine is in the direct service of people. Designers can create and enhance the intermediary user experience between medicine itself those it’s trying to serve. But arguably, designers who are specialized themselves to work in that industry will have a better understanding of it, so they’re not having to reinvent the process every time.
I think the divergence of design is good because it gets other industries thinking about the human element of their products, systems, or services, including the resources and processes that are involved in building them. Design brings question and curiosity to the way things are traditionally done, poking holes in them and asking if there’s a better way.
[Business of Design] - Final Response: My Ideal Future
Already, I have an awesome summer internship lined up at Hot Studio, an experience design company in San Francisco. I’ll be working there amongst their user experience team as an interaction designer. I hope that working at such an established and popular design agency will allow me to explore and use the most innovative tools and approaches to solve problems and create meaningful experiences. As I mentioned in a previous post, I desire a work environment that respects autonomy and encourages mastery to further develop my strengths and abilities, as well as satiate my creative and curious mind. I do believe Hot Studio will provide this, along with people and a culture that believe and desire the same things. I have high hopes this summer for being a part of something big and influential.
In my upcoming final school year, I must choose an idea to explore as my thesis. To be honest, I am not sure yet as to what it will be, but I hope it’ll be something that empowers others, spurs thought, connects people, and is delightful. That is in part, my definition so far of a meaningful experience.
I chose to put a hold on my full-time career to go back to school because I wanted to apply the energy and passion I have to innovate and create. I wanted to move from an act of thinking to an act of doing. After grad school, I want to keep this momentum going in whatever I do. I want to cause change and make an impact. I want to add value to people’s lives in meaningful and wonderful ways, and I want to do it by designing experiences at any level necessary, in whatever form or medium it may be.
They [Fiona Raby and Tony Dunne] see the Interaction Design Department as a place where people who are frustrated with the limitations of their original disciplines can gather to figure out which bits of what discipline—from anthropology and architecture to computer science, fine art, and design—can combine to create better, more human, electronic products, media, and services.
[Business of Design] - Response 11: Ideal Company Culture
I’m seeking to work at a company—and perhaps one day create a company—with a profound company culture. I have previously mentioned that my personal values are to create meaningful experiences that engage, empower, connect, and delight people in new and wonderful ways. This fills me with a sense of purpose, or a drive to use all the skills, tools, and resources available to do the best work possible. This idea of value or purpose are huge components of both Dan Pink’s and Simon Sinek’s talks on innovation and motivation in the workplace. It’s not about what we do, it’s about why we do it. A company with a strong sense of purpose will attract like-minded employees. These employees will then build meaningful products and services that customers will highly value because these products and services always set themselves apart from others that aren’t made with a sense of purpose. Everyone wants to be a part of something special, whether they are creating it or buying it. Filling basic needs isn’t enough.
Dan Pink, in his book and talk Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us, he advocates for creating a work environment that allows autonomy and encourages mastery. People want to succeed and become better at what they do, and giving them the freedom to do this can be immensely empowering. This can take the form of providing paid time for employees to explore whatever projects they wish (like Atlassian), or this can take the form of providing employees with the resources and support necessary to serve the customer in the best possible way (like Zappos). The basic premise is to treat people as intelligent and creative human beings capable of doing amazing things, not as machines meant to follow instructions and produce one deliverable after another.
Tim Brown, CEO of IDEO, brings one last element of value to my ideal company culture, which is the inclusion of creativity and play in the workplace. He speaks to the ultimate creative freedom we have as children, not being inhibited by any sense of wrong. To solve problems and create experiences that are innovative, it’s critical to provide an environment for people to think and propose ideas without fear, no matter how crazy or ambitious they may be. This environment can be fun and encourage play, to help put us in the mindset of what it’s like to think freely like a child again.
[Business of Design] - Response 10: Lessig vs. Valenti on Creativity, Commerce, and Culture
If you’re interested in learning more about the issues surrounding copyright protection and whether or not it imposes upon the creation of creativity, commerce, and culture, you should check out the debate between Larry Lessig, Professor of Law at Stanford University, and Jack Valenti, former President of the Motion Picture Association of America.
It’s probably not too difficult to figure out from the speakers’ titles alone who takes position on what side. Jack Valenti, 80-years old, has played a significant role in a major industry that spends millions of dollars producing entertainment that can be sold again and again in different formats. It’s in his best interest that he protects his industry’s content—for as long as possible…even “indefinitely, minus a day”—from being copied because it nets him and his clients more money. Valenti truly believes that a content creator deserves these rights at an almost extreme level, but when so much money is involved, it’s hard for me to believe that this is okay when such a big industry throws its weight at the government to secure what seems very much like a monopoly.
Throughout the entire debate, Valenti continuously cites the law and court decisions to back his sentiment that copyright protection in its ongoing form shouldn’t be questioned. The problem here is that Jack, even in his wise old age, doesn’t put the argument into context, which Larry Lessig continues to provide. Issues surrounding copyright infringement isn’t new, but the methods and mediums with which content is distributed have changed drastically and even exponentially in the last 30 years. From Betamax to the Internet, it has become increasingly easier to copy and share information. But rather than innovate around these new technological advancements that provide incredible opportunities to reach out and build a customer base, major content industries like the Motion Picture Association of America have thrown vast resources against sharing of any kind, at least that of which they can’t control. People want content easily accessible on whatever devices they have, and when irrational restrictions impose on what people want and think they should be able to do, those people will seek the means to break it and work around it. In the case of Napster, people enjoyed downloading and sharing digital formats of music. The record label companies rebelled against this. But fast forward to today, and you can see that they eventually caved-in to what was obviously a better and more efficient way to access and enjoy content.
Copyright isn’t always bad, but when it is allowed to continue on and on, it inhibits other people from adapting stories and experiences into new stories and experiences. To move forward, we must show restraint on imposing restraint. Jack Valenti should realize that too much of a good thing can actually be a bad thing. ©
[Business of Design] - Response 9: Working at Goldman Sachs
Read Greg Smith’s letter of resignation to Goldman Sachs, published in the New York Times, and see him bring to light how drastically Goldman Sachs culture and moral values have changed for the worse over the twelve years since he began working there. The client and their interests are no longer held to the highest level. They have instead become merely “muppets,” being pushed and pulled in directions that only serve Goldman Sachs and their needs, filling their pocket books. By publishing his resignation online—and through a major news outlet no less—Smith is sending a loud and clear message to the board of directors: “Get the culture right again, so people want to work here for the right reasons. People who care only about making money will not sustain this firm — or the trust of its clients — for very much longer.”
Although directed at the highest levels of the firm, Smith’s message impacts everyone who works there. This may prove difficult for people who agree with him, but don’t have the freedom to leave as he did. If I were put in this position, I would have some explaining to do to my clients, as well as my friends and family. I would take this opportunity to side with Smith, and do everything in my power to communicate that the service I am providing is in the client’s best interests. It might take more time to prove that, but its a huge opportunity to distinguish myself in a firm who now has to change after this public shaming, or else. All eyes are on the board of directors, but as they take their time to decide upon the responsive action, I can best serve my clients and myself by being legitimate and honest.
On March 14, 2012, Greg Smith resigned as a Goldman Sachs executive director and head of the firm’s United States equity derivatives business in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa.
