Category Archives: Design

Toward Artisanal Design

I was talking with Bryan Leister this past weekend about what design is and the challenges of design in the future. He described it as selling artisanal tomatoes. The challenge for designers in our time is to convince the general public that heirloom tomatoes are better than hothouse tomatoes. This, he said, is a design problem. I think he’s right.

I think of this as a movement toward artisanal design; it’s against the grain, and a challenge to show that the atypical is preferable to the typical. But design can and should support the creation of a world where the context of use and the personality of the creator are as important as the shape itself.

The Middle Path to (Design) Wisdom

“Everything is shit. The word art must be redefined. This is the age where everyone creates.”
–Patti Smith

“The blogosphere is itself a commodification of authenticity”
–Andrew Keen

Clay Shirky posted some thoughts about humility and arrogance in design on A Brief Message this morning. I’ve been considering some similar ideas over the past few months, as have many others, I’m sure. It’s almost impossible to avoid the topic in the design community, with all the discussion of crowdsourcing and folksonomies and metadesign and web 2.0 and…

I appreciate Clay’s thoughts on the ugliness of myspace (true) and the arrogance of apple (also true). As a design strategist working with interaction and innovation, I spend a inordinate amount of my time considering ways to bridge the gap between the worlds of user-generated and expert contribution; sometimes the distance feels too great to fathom.

There was even something of a internet dustup earlier this year when Andrew Keen published his book “The Cult of the Amateur”. Crowdsourcing? But what about virtuosity? You think you’re an auteur? But what about youtube? What do you say, Clay? Andrew, any comments for the crowdsourcing crowd?

Okay, this is the world we live in, and it’s our challenge to find a way to make these work together. So here’s what I would like to do; I propose setting up a tag-team cage match between the avatars of the leaders of different factions of the media world. Maybe we could do it in second life.

In the red trunks, Mark Cuban, telling stories of the long tail ghetto. You want to get paid for that? Well, unless you own the Dallas Mavericks you’re going to need OPM (other people’s money).

In the blue trunks, it’s Jimmy Wales going all wikia on everything. The future is open source. Hey, everyone is an expert in something, right?

Jimmy gets in a couple of virtual smackdowns, and Cuban tags off to the talented single moniker duo brangelina. Big Hollywood talent and money in the ring, what are the little guys going to do?

Wales escapes to his corner and is replaced in the ring by Lonelygirl15, and she gets additional support from Ask-a-Ninja. Wow, this is going to be some match. Who will be standing at the end of the day?

In truth, the process and results of design are changing. Processes tend to be more collaborative and distributed than in the past; this is true both when working with expert teams and with the folks creating their own folksonomies. In some cases, we’re building an iterative framework to allow the design to define itself over time. In other cases, we start with a expert vision, and refine and revise as we move forward.

There is still a long way to go. New paradigms are being developed; we are still exploring technologies and have yet to really understand the potential for stories in this newly connected environment. We’re still watching the Lumiere brothers fly to the moon, and we haven’t had our Eisenstein show us the potential of cinematic montage.

There is room for both the expert and the amateur in the world of design. Wisdom will come from knowing which approach is appropriate and when.

Substance: Diverse Practices from the Periphery

One of the most compelling exhibits of the year will be taking place this fall at the Center for Visual Art in Denver. Curated by Lisa Abendroth of Metropolitan State College of Denver, the show brings together a broad range of innovative designs focused on improving the quality of everyday life.

Lisa has put the focus of the exhibit on three parts of the “design story”; cause, method, and impact. By understanding the need, using a people-centered approach, and developing solutions that are appropriate, efficient, and elegant, the designers included in this exhibit have created solutions that show the value of design thinking in real-world situations.

Kicking off the exhibition will be a presentation by Kenneth Jewell of Continuum speaking about their work on Nicholas Negroponte and the MIT Media Lab’s “One Laptop per Child” project (aka the $100 laptop).

SUBSTANCE: Diverse Practices from the Periphery
September 6 – November 9, 2007

Thursday, September 13, 2007
6 – 7 pm: Lecture: One Laptop per Child – Kenneth Jewell, Continuum (Boston, Milan, Seoul)
7 – 9 pm: Opening Reception

Thursday, October 11, 2007
6 pm: Lecture: Patricia Moore, MooreDesign Associates (Phoenix, AZ) and Bryan Bell, Design Corps (Raleigh, NC)

Friday, October 12, 2007
8:30 – 10 pm: Gala Reception in conjunction with the AIGA NEXT national design conference

More information is available on the CVA website at www.mscd.edu/news/cva/

What’s Next in Design?

For the past six months or so I’ve been working with a great group of Colorado designers (including Fred Murrell, Craig Rouse, and Jason Otero) to develop the identity for the AIGA national conference, coming to Denver this October. I provided the design for the conference website, and am currently working with Sean and Todd at Day Job on a social networking application that should make it very easy for attendees to connect with others who share their interests.

Part of the goal of the conference identity is to provide a flexible framework that will allow others to present their ideas of “what’s next” in design. One opportunity for the sharing of ideas is available on the conference website now. Download the frame, add your ideas, and share them with the world. More ways to engage are coming in the future, but this is a pretty good starting place. We’re planning to share the results at the conference.

Design, Authenticity, Innovation

note: these thoughts are based on a presentation I made this past friday at the Image Space Object conference.

I’m interested in new forms of storytelling, and especially the use of storytelling in designing innovative products and services. I’m also interested in historical forms and variations of stories, and their value for people’s lives.

I love the story of the Pilgrim’s Progress, if only because it helps put our own lives in context. However complex and difficult our lives may be, and with all the challenges we face, it seems unlikely that our lives are more difficult than that of the medieval everyman.

If, as William Blake said in Proverbs of Hell, “Improvement makes straight roads; but the crooked roads without improvement are roads of Genius,” then our goal is to walk down the winding path without knowing all its twists and turns.

My own background is in performance and storytelling; I started working in interactive media in the early nineties. The addition of interactivity caused me to rethink the nature of telling stories; over time I came to believe that personal stories are the most vital and compelling, but as I began to consider interactivity I was thrown into a world where there was no longer control the way the story is experienced; how do we communicate themes and messages if there is no plot, no defined beginning, middle, and end?

One way to frame this new form of storytelling is to think of it as a conversation between the author and the audience; by its nature a conversation has a spontaneous and uncontrolled feel, and yet it can also be structured and composed. Conversations wander crooked roads, but they are informed by the needs and desires of the participants.

There is a natural tendency among creative people to believe that great work leaps fully formed into the world like Athena from the head of Zeus, but when we are creating complex projects that require interaction both between various team members and audiences, this is a risky proposition to say the least. This is another reason I prefer to frame the design process as a creative dialogue. In a dialogue we don’t know where the conversation will take us; the uncertainty of the end-result is part of the creative process.

The Design Imperative

The quest for certainty blocks the search for meaning. Uncertainty is the very condition to impel man to unfold his powers. Creativity requires the courage to let go of certainties.
~ Erich Fromm

Change is always tough. Facing the uncertain, considering the void, going to the dentist. And certainly our experience is that the pace of change is increasing. It’s not clear whether the stress of change on a personal level is greater than at times in the past, but clearly we are more directly connected to one another globally.

With climate change, globalization, social and political upheaval, and technological acceleration, the risk is that the gap will be filled with alienation, hopelessness, and reactionary nostalgia. The fact of the matter is that in the future we will all have to make due with less stuff. The potential for a bleak future is very real; the goal of voluntarily decreasing consumption and reducing our environmental impact can only be achieved if we are offered a corresponding richness of experience.

We will eventually have to engage in a revaluation of all values (as Nietzsche referred to it), and it will not be an easy sell. Changing consumer behavior will require real design innovation (as well as changes in our behavior as designers) from throughout the design disciplines. Through creativity, imagination, and innovation we have the opportunity and responsibility to model the future, to create the world that we will live in.

This all sounds very bleak and serious, but ultimately the imperative is to find opportunities for joy, humor and fun in our products, processes, and interactions. Not superficial pleasure based in the avoidance of the real, nor a “whistling past the graveyard” gallows humor, but authentic pleasure based in creativity and personal growth. And not just for us as designers, but also for our audience.

Our task is to engage our audience in an ongoing, iterative, and authentic dialogue. But let’s not take ourselves too seriously, or we risk missing out on the pleasure of honest work. To be true to ourselves, to be authentic, we should look around corners and find the unexpected surprises and delights that await us there.

The Search for Authenticity

“No authentic human life is possible without irony”
Soren Kierkegaard, The Concept of Irony (1840)

Lately, the term authenticity seems to be resurfacing in the lexicon of the business community. There’s a new book on the topic, and I’ve encountered it in some of the research and design work I’ve done with my clients. Its use can be problematic, and there is a tendency to be either too flip in throwing it around, or alternately dismissive of the value of its consideration.

When I was in college I read a lot of existential philosophy, and authenticity is a prominent term of study in that area.

By the way, I’m a strong believer in what Steve Martin once said: “If you’re studying geology, which is all facts, as soon as you get out of school you forget it all, but with philosophy you remember just enough to screw you up for the rest of your life.” So, if you are wise you won’t assume that my memories of philosophy are based in any reality.

But nonetheless, my understanding is that authenticity is closely aligned with courage and honesty in the face of outside forces; the authentic individual is one who does what is true and right and ethical despite the pressures put on us by society. It’s a simple idea, but one that is very difficult to put into practice; there are always competing exigencies in our work and lives, and the lines are not always clearly drawn. But the risks are also high, given the importance of the choices we make in our daily lives.

“We have a hunger for something like authenticity, but are easily satisfied by an ersatz facsimile.” -George Orwell, c. 1949

I was recently sent an invitation to attend a conference conducted by James Gilmore and Joe Pine, who wrote ‘The Experience Economy’ several years ago. As part of the invitation they sent out the first chapter of their new book called “Authenticity: What Consumers Really Want”. The conference is called ‘ThinkAbout’ and it’s taking place this year in Nashville. The logo is a great facsimile of letterpress printing, and is definitely an example of practicing what you preach. Hatch Show Print, eat your hearts out. You’ve been out authenticized by a couple of business consultants.

On the thinkabout website it says the following:

“We live in a world of increasingly staged experiences. Interactions with companies are more and more mediated by technology. The rise of postmodernism thought affects personal behavior while the psychology of aging Baby Boomers influences the consumption decisions of us all. And our confidence in our major social institutions had eroded, creating an ever-growing perception of how their practices run afoul of their purposes. Everywhere around us, we detect fakeness.”

I think I may be detecting just a tiny bit of fakeness right here. They even have a theme song called corporate renegade. I’ll do you a favor and not make you listen to it.

“To be blunt: business offerings must get real. When consumers want what’s real, the management of the customer perception of Authenticity becomes the primary source of competitive advantage – the new business imperative.”

I don’t mean to be too hard on these guys; perhaps they are on to something valuable. But they keep talking about managing the ‘customer perception of authenticity.’ Real authenticity is not about managing perception; it’s about engaging in the pursuit of real innovation.

“It doesn’t matter what the jargon says, so long as it is spoken in a voice that resonates properly.”-T.W. Adorno, The Jargon of Authenticity (1964)

Authenticity always runs the risk of waxing nostalgic, and the next thing you know you end up with House of Blues (or worse, the Taliban). Martin Heidegger, one of the philosophical cheerleaders of authenticity, spent the last years of his life advocating for a return to a pre-industrial agrarian worldview.

As a final note on this topic, I came across an idea attributed to Jean Baudrillard; the fake is charming, while the simulacrum is not. I have no problem with the honest fake; it’s the pretender, and especially the regressive nostalgic pretender, who offends my sensibility.

As multidisciplinary design teams, our goal should be to claim (or reclaim) authenticity as the purview of innovation. Innovation requires exploring outside of our personal habits and values, without taking ourselves too seriously. As we’ve seen, a little humor helps teams to explore enticing alternatives and engage their audience. Most important is flipping the approach around to explore it from the other’s point of view.

Out of Your Head Innovation

Maybe it’s paradoxical to advocate for the development of fictional models as a means to move toward real innovation. How is it possible that an approach based in the imagination, or more specifically encouraging shared imagination among collaborators, can offer real opportunities for innovation? I believe the value lies precisely in the need to consider the experience of the other, to be forced to get out of our own heads, our own habits, the rituals and beliefs that are so engrained in all of us. The purpose is not to negate or devalue our own experience, but rather to add richness, breadth, and depth to our own experience.

If authentic innovation requires us to get out of our own heads and engage the conversation from a different perspective, story-centered design techniques offer a rapid, iterative, and repeatable process for moving in that direction. To be clear, it is not exclusive or comprehensive in and of itself, but rather an approach that should be used in conjunction with other approaches.

For example, ethnographic and other human-centered research techniques garner real-world insights that are absolutely indispensable to understanding the subtleties and depth of human experience. Prototypes and models allow the iteration of concepts and ideas in increasing fidelity.

What’s in a Story?

In terms of their use in the design process, the definition of a story may vary slightly from traditional concepts, though the core elements remain basically the same; plot, theme, character, and structure. Traditionally stories have a narrative arc, with a beginning, middle and end.

When most people think of story, they think in terms of plot. An important consideration regarding storytelling in the art and design space is that plot often becomes a secondary or even tertiary consideration. It can be hard to figure out the point-to-point precisely because there are so many points of entry and exit, and so many different paths that can be traversed through the story, whatever it turns out to be. In these cases there are other elements intrinsic to the story that become of primary importance, including theme, structure, and character.

One way to think of this is that in the world of designing innovation, the plot is incomplete; it’s always a work in progress. The audience becomes a character in the story and is responsible for the way it works out over time. We need to think more of narrative architecture and less about point-to-point definition. Themes, structures, and characters are put in place and allowed to define some of the details; stories, when used in a forward-looking situation, like prototyping and modeling or even architecture, need to provide a framework where the visitor is engaged and encouraged to tell their own story. And that story becomes the starting point for future modification and revision.

In a sense, this type of design is really metadesign; we’re creating a design where the audience fills in the blanks. We want to create the opportunity for other uses, other stories, and other ideas. Ideas beyond those that we ourselves can imagine.

We live in a world of tremendous interconnectedness between various disciplines. Designers need to be aware of politics and business and cultures. Ultimately, it is a question of value, and values. More than ever, we need to be concerned with value of what we communicate to the individual and to the world in which we live. Design is problem solving, but the problem always comes in a context. As designers we need to work to see that the context is as comprehensive as possible; even when presented with a very specific issue, it is incumbent on us to connect to the larger framework of the world in which we live.

Story provides a structure through which multiple individuals can bring their own experiences and beliefs to bear on a shared experience, enhancing it and growing it over time. And in doing so build communities in ways that don’t oversimplify or reduce our experiences into a homogenized mediocrity. We are looking for excellence, and from all those engaged in the process, including designers, businesses and the public. Now is the age when everyone creates.

See you later, decorator

I admit it. I have my guilty pleasures. I am a pop culture junky. I watched some Rock Star (more INXS than Supernova, where I was frightened to find myself agreeing with Dave Navarro), and quite a bit of Project Runway. Even Top Chef has some interesting moments. They’re all pop entertainment, but with a (somewhat) redeeming hook; the people in the competition are creative. But there are limits, and I found mine last year watching an episode of “Top Design” on Bravo. I’m not sure what the difference is, but I found it insufferable. But why?

Over the course of the last twenty or so years, I’ve spent quite a lot of time with artists and designers. Despite the differences in their interests, perspective, and approach, there is one feeling that most of them share in common; they don’t want to be known as people who make pretty things. Sure, a lot of them make pretty things, but most artists and designers don’t want that to be their legacy. With whatever respect is due to Jonathan Adler (if any), authentic designers and artists don’t want to be decorators.

This despite the apparent truth that design and art don’t directly engage the world’s problems. If social workers in cities and field workers for NGO’s are directly engaged in helping address social and political issues, designers are at least one level removed, and artists are arguably even further out of the realm of effective action. Of course, many artists and designers work (explicitly or implicitly) for political and social causes, but it’s a stretch to argue that Matthew Barney or Andy Warhol make meaningful improvement to the fabric of society.

So, can art and design go beyond ‘reflecting the world’ to ‘changing the world’? Or should they? In the design world, this argument has come front and center over the past ten or fifteen years. Part of the reason is the emergence of ‘experience design’ (or user-centered design or human-centered design if you prefer); though experience design became common parlance through designing interactions on computers and the web, product designers (or at least good product designers) have been doing it for as long as there have been products.

Good designers, whether graphic or interaction or product or architecture or interior design, have to understand their audience. Which is not to say that the product shouldn’t be fun, or even whimsical. But there should be an awareness of the cultural context in which the work is being produced. Somewhere, somehow, there has to be a purpose for design. In a vacuum, what we create is just decoration. See you later, decorator.

inhabitating the planet.

Inhabitat is a well-designed site that talks up ecodesign. They say that good design is green design, and green design is good design. Bully for that. Recently, inhabitat founder Jill Fehrenbacher conducted a panel with Allan Chochinov of Core 77, Susan Szenasy of Metropolis, and Graham Hill of treehugger.com. Though the reel is a few highlights of the conversation, it touches on some valid issues and provides a framework around the problems involved in working in sustainable design.

My responses to what I saw are as follows: ultimately, I believe the imperitaves for designers in the developed world are twofold:

First, to encourage consumers to decrease their consumption; in other words, to convince all of us that we can have more fun with less stuff. The vast majority of the actions we take toward sustainability (including recycling and buying hybrid cars) are band-aid solutions, making us feel better but not really making a significant change in our carbon footprint. The potential for a bleak future is very real; a goal of decreasing consumption will only be achieved if we provide richness of experience. We are engaging in what will eventually have to be a revaluation of values (as Nietzsche called), and it will not be an easy sell. Changing consumer behavior will require real design innovation (as well as changes in our behavior as designers) from throughout the design disciplines.

But the process of engaging consumers in the change process is a cakewalk compared to the true challenge that confronts us. The Second imperative for design is to fundamentally change our relationship with our clients; this change will require us to put our whole livelihood at risk. If there is a change in the values and behaviors of the customers for our products, there will have to be a corresponding change in the values and behaviors of industry. Not just in terms of use of recycled and sustainable approaches to design, but to reevaluate and retool the entire product lifecycle. Think your clients are going to want to change their business model to sell less? They may not want to, but eventually (some day) they will have to. The question is whether the change is engaged in voluntarily, caused by outside forces, or some combination of both.

One approach to this, potentially, is to encourage the artisinal in design, where there is less consumed but what is consumed is of a higher quality (however quality is defined). But this is a long way from happening in our WalMart and McDonalds world. Even in so-called elite circles who claim to be aware of our world’s needs, there is a tendency toward preferring the appearance of the authentic over the truly authentic. Last summer I attended at the Aspen Design Summit, and the topic was social and environmental justice, but in each hotel room there was a plastic bottle of Fiji water. Apparently Aspen tap just wasn’t good enough.

In the end, the hardest change is personal change, and the toughest awareness is personal awareness. Before I can encourage others to have fun with less, I need to have fun with less. I’m gonna work on that.

photography and the metaverse

Fred Murrell sent me this link to a recent presentation at the TED conference. The presenter, Blaise Aguera y Arcas (genius), has developed a remarkable technology (acquired last year by Microsoft) that interconnects geospacial data and imagery, and allows them to be superimposed over one another without concern for the size of the files. In other words, this is really cool stuff.

The TED site was relaunched earlier this year. The interface was designed to incorporate dynamic navigation based on themes. Definitely worth checking out.

Interaction Design

“Prototype early and often, making each interative step a little more realistic”

Bill Moggridge opens with this comment in the introduction to Chapter 10 of his book “Designing Interactions”. In some ways it’s the best and simplest description of the design process I have heard in a long time.

I finally got around to picking up his book this past week, and it’s a remarkably comprehensive compendium of information about how we went from the Lisa to the Blackberry. It feels like a textbook, and clocks in at over 700 pages. Not all of it feels pertinent to design in a broader sense – the definition of interaction design is surprisingly narrow given the amount of interviews Bill engages in – but there are tremendous nuggets that anyone who does user-centered design will find reassuring and even reinvigorating. If nothing else, every designer should read (and re-read) Chapter 10: ‘People and Prototypes’.

For the past three years, I’ve been a speaker and team mentor at a great design event called “Image, Space, Object”. It’s put on by the AIGA and run by Mike and Kathy McCoy and Fred Murrell. I’m lucky to have been a part of the event; it is one place where my three passions (user-centered design, storytelling, and rapid prototyping) all come together. For three days participants work collaboratively to create something completely new.

This August the event is happening again, with a slightly new theme: “People Centered Brand Experiences”; while some of the studio mentors/presenters are coming back again (Rick Robinson and Hugh Dubberly have been there since the beginning, while Chris Hacker will be back for the third time), this year’s special guest is Mr. Bill Moggridge. Here’s how the process is described on the conference site:

People-centered narratives serve as a starting place for the design of graphic, interaction, product and environmental experiences. Research, modeling, team ideation and experiential prototyping are employed throughout the three days to produce tangible final presentations that can be brought back to work and used with your design teams.

Jill wants a bunny

Tonight JHH informed me that she wants a bunny. But not just any bunny. A french bunny. A bunny that can hear, smell, talk, read the news, wake you up in the morning, tell you to stop working, talk to other bunnies, move its ears, play the radio, read your email, send visual messages in a semaphore-ish sign language. A pretty extraordinary bunny, in other words.

She says there are two reasons why we need a bunny. First, it’s the first of the smart appliances of the future, and if we don’t accept them now we will be left behind in the future. Second, it’s cute.

In my opinion, it might be a bit too cute. I think I might want to dismember the little fellow after about a week. So, I’m not so sure I’m ready for this. But you can make up your own mind. His name is Nabaztag.