Hugh Graham Creative

The Design Continuum

Design rests on a continuum between production and innovation. Along this continuum, whether working in product, communication, or interaction, designers focus on providing a compelling experience, an experience that is useful, usable, and desirable (or, as the architect Vitruvius wrote in the first century BCE, firmitas, utilitas, venustas).

In those realms of design that are mature as a practice, it’s not necessary to invent new approaches in order to provide their audience with a satisfactory experience. For instance, print design for corporate reports or brochures or magazines may benefit from new approaches, but in a narrow sense innovation isn’t required to be successful. These design realms lie closer to the production end of the spectrum.

While there are many designers doing successful work in these fields who don’t feel the need to change the recipe for success, others are feeling “the squeeze of print” during our time of interactivity and connectedness and environmental awareness. Many writers, illustrators, and graphic designers have taken the best practices of print communications and are now applying them to the web and interactive world. For these artists, it’s not too great a stretch to design for interactivity.

These artists are well-served by understanding basic principles of people-centered research and design, but a deep knowledge of these realms isn’t absolutely necessary for their work to be successful and engaging and compelling. The intersection of motion design principles with ’swiss’ design grids and hierarchies is bringing out some great design work. But most of the change is formal rather than essential.

Designing Change

For many designers, interactivity and connectedness and socially responsible approaches have led to new paradigms; there is an increasing overlap between the worlds of ’strategy’ and ‘design’. Business strategy in particular is closely aligned to design innovation; in fact, it’s sometimes hard to tell the difference between the two, though there are important differences. What are the specific approaches that allow designers to create new products? And how do these approaches align and diverge?

As we look at the new paradigms in contemporary design practice, there are many terms currently in play. For instance, design thinking has gotten a lot of press, and there are other terms bandied about to describe these new approaches; people-centered design, participatory design, interaction design, metadesign, concept design, systems design, innovation design, and story-centered design are just a few, and each speaks to some part of this evolving approach to designing change.

It’s possible to consider all of these as components of a broader world of design strategy. At the least, they tend to share some characteristics; for instance, most combine research and generative components, advocate for iterative methods, and encourage the use of narrative as a tool for discovery.

Research Components

The value of ethnographic and other qualitative research techniques in the development of people centered design is broadly understood and accepted. Observation, interviews, journaling, and other techniques offer designers working in a variety of fields (product, experience, communications, interaction, etc.) the opportunity to gain insights that inform the design process.

Some research approaches are comprehensive and take a considerable amount of time and expense to complete, while others focus on quicker turnaround with a guerilla attitude. The appropriate combination of research components has to be tailored for each design problem, and may vary from conducting a few interviews with friends to spending months or even years recording the behaviors of whole families or organizations.

What is undeniable is the value of conducting some research on any innovation project; you don’t want to overbuild your initial solution, but a key component of designing innovation is “getting out of your head” and understanding the perspective of the person who will be using your product. Even short research can often reveal adaptive and compensatory behaviors as well as individual peculiarities that help to inform the design process.

For instance, I conducted a series of interviews with University of Denver students recently, and found both surprising alignment and extensive differences both in terms of behavior and values. A well-conducted interview can reveal quite a bit, but I’ve also had great success using participant photo journals to explore beyond the time limitations of the interview session. More extensive research programs have been used to create whole new product categories.

Rick Robinson, formerly of eLab and Sapient, and now at Continuum, has defined an ethnography as follows:

• A description, of a system, activity, belief, setting, culture, etc.
• and interpretation - not just a summary-of that description
• toward an end - both instrumental and salient
• within constraints - of site, setting, time, tools, materials, and solution spaces

Whatever the scope of the research project, understanding the importance of interpretation, goals, and limitations is critical to success. This is not research for research sake; the findings may be surprising, but the goals should be well-defined.

Generative Components

I have written extensively on story-centered design; it’s an effective approach to collaborative problem solving, particularly as a tool to help generate new ideas. This approach is gaining broader interest and acceptance, especially among interaction and product designers. In an article titled “Creative gesture or vapid prototyping? The importance of fictional products” posted on the adobe design center site, Allan Chochinov of Core 77 says the following:

Too many of our products are function first/form second—or form first/function second—with narrative, story-telling elements nowhere to be found. How bad would it be if our products began with narrative in the first place; with an idea of the experience of the product in mind, before that product ever had the chance to turn into landfill? Not bad at all, really.

He goes on to quote Scott Klinker of Cranbrook who argues that:

more and more product designers are now exploiting the power of storytelling to probe user behaviors, find experience “touchpoints,” create novel forms, and ultimately deliver new product experiences.

As with research techniques, narrative exploration needs to be focused on well-defined goals; stories need to be individualized and involve specific interactions. Story-centered design is a method that needs to be combined with other design approaches to be used successfully.

Innovation Design, understood broadly, provides a rubric that can help to understand the components involved in the process. In the current issue of Interactions Magazine (published by the Association for Computing Machinery), Hugh Dubberly offers A Model of Innovation that explores a lot of these parameters. The introduction to the article states:

As businesses have become good at managing quality, quality has become a sort of commodity - “table stakes,” necessary but not sufficient to ensure success. When everyone offers quality, quality no longer stands out. Businesses must look elsewhere for differentiation. The next arena for competition has become innovation. The question becomes: Can innovation be “tamed” as quality was?

One component that Dubberly discusses in his model is the importance of values (beliefs may lead to actions may lead to artifacts). Experience shows that an iterative design process based in the experience of the individual requires grounding in the importance of providing value.

Emergent Design

There is a facet of the design process that isn’t satisfactorily described by any of these terms; specifically, the experience of design as iterative, evolutionary, and, in a sense, out of the designers control. I’ve written about this before when discussing the work of Jan Chipchase, who argues that designers provide the basic functionality, and the extensions are added by the users. How do we design for a future that we can’t foresee? The best term I’ve heard for this is ‘emergent design’.

I first started considering the idea of emergent design based on reading Henry Jenkins ideas of “emergent narratives” in his description of Game Design as Narrative Architecture:

in the case of emergent narratives, game spaces are designed to be rich with narrative potential, enabling the story-constructing activity of players. In each case, it makes sense to think of game designers less as storytellers than as narrative architects.

If we abstract the idea of emergent narratives beyond games, perhaps emergent design offers the opportunity to describe a design process that is equally “rich with narrative potential” while inclusive of other design methods (for instance, ethnographic research and prototyping). It points to iterative and participatory approaches, without requiring a particular methodology.

In an article titled “Emergent Design and learning environments: Building on indigenous knowledge” published the IBM Systems Journal (Volume 39, Numbers 3 & 4, 2000), David Cavallo of the MIT Media Laboratory says this of the limitations of current approaches to systems design:

When the desired changes cannot be reliably foreseen, and particularly when the target domain is computationally too complex for automation and thus relies on the understanding and development of the people involved, then top-down, preplanned approaches have intrinsic shortcomings and an emergent approach is required.
[…]
The critical point is that adoption and implementation of new methodologies needs to be based in, and grow from, the existing culture, and typically fails when it is merely imposed from above without such cultural considerations.

What If?

Going back to Allan Chochinov’s discussion of ‘fictional design’, we find a great summary of the emerging approach to designing for change:

Playing out “what if” scenarios has well served designers, conceptual artists, and provocateurs of all stripes to explore their craft; to take license (or to take “design permission,” using Leonard’s phrase) with what is expected, what is sensible, or what is pragmatic. Design fictions remake the playing field into something beyond a commercial go/no go enterprise; they let designers ask “what if?”

Of course, there always has to be balance between production and innovation. But more and more there is a need to ask what if, to get out of our own heads, to explore, to innovate our way into the future.

Hadley did this illustration for an article written by Sam Lipsyte and published by the New York Times. The article is called The Gift and it’s a tough read, but probably most appropriate during the time of year when we consider what really matters in our lives.

In the story, Sam recalls the time he spent caring for his mother as she was dying of cancer, and spends time expressing regret over the time he lost, and perhaps, in his own way, committing himself to caring more in the future.

I think hadley’s piece catches the sprit of this most precious realization, and beautifully ties it to shortest days of the year. Time is the most valuable gift any of us has, and what we do with that time is the most important choice any of us make.

Happy new year.

1. The Night Sky

Mankind is proceeding to envelope itself in a luminous fog
- Italian astronomer Pierantonio Cinzano

Kipple drives out nonkipple… No one can win against kipple, except temporarily and maybe in one spot.
- Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Philip K. Dick, 1968
(via 43 folders)

Pierantonio Cinzano’s 2001 atlas of artificial night sky brightness estimated that two-thirds of the U.S. population, and one-fifth of the world population, can no longer see the Milky Way with the naked eye.

Perhaps Cinzano’s luminous fog has been transported into our minds. In the connected world there is a wealth of information and a dearth of wisdom. In my own life I resist, more or less successfully, attraction and distraction from the latest email or blog or website or television show or other diversions, always rushing from virtual place-to-place, willy-nilly and busy-busy.

What is this luminous fog? The extraneous, the kipple (as described by Philip K. Dick), the extra bits of detritus that pile up and distract us from what matters. All those ways of filling the day, so much to be done, so many avenues to explore.

But how to keep the current in perspective with the important? How to balance the emerging with the essential? Which is kipple and which nonkipple? With limited time and energy, something has to go, and soon enough the latest episode of Project Runway replaces Ovid’s Metamorphoses. Soon enough the ephemeral stars of hollywood replace the dimming stars in the night sky.

2. The Daily News

I read the news most every morning. My newspapers come from all over the world, and are neatly segmented by my RSS news reader, netnewswire, into various categories. I get the headlines from the New York Times, and the BBC, and El Pais. I get design news from Core 77 and Unbeige, and Swiss Miss, and Web 2.0 updates from techcrunch and techmeme and boing boing and wired. Environmental news comes from worldchanging and open the future, words from the virtual thesaurus, and local info from denver infill and coloradopols.com and westword. And that’s only the beginning.

It comes through email too; I get news stories sent to me from friends and acquaintances; this past week Tim Roessler sent me a link about John Thackera, director of Doors of Perception. Mike Reddick sent a note about Open ID. Ed Hickok sent a news item on how kangaroo farts may help with global warming. All great news stories.

I have a friend, David Callaway, who is managing editor for Marketwatch.com, the online financial news service. Recently he wrote a column marking the tenth anniversary of Marketwatch where he argued that “Content isn’t king. News is king.” It may be king. But is it enough?

When I posed the question of of timeliness to a panel of design bloggers, including Alissa Walker of unbeige and Allan Chocinov of Core 77, at the AIGA Next conference in October, both Alissa and Allan stated their desire to be first, to get the scoop. As Liz Danzico said in her notes posted on unbeige, “if a day goes by, the topic is gone. So timing is everything.”

Absolutely vital and correct, if you’re in the news business, and perhaps if you are in the business of tracking the industry full-time. But for a casual reader seeking insights into what matters in the our world, it’s simply overwhelming. The pink noise of our environment drowns out all perspective.

Sure, RSS feeds offer some control, but what can be done about people like Tina at swissmiss or the crew at joshspear? These people are insane with all their postings. Clearly they is trying to ruin my life, condemning me to do nothing but click through a relentlessly updated directory of beautiful distractions. Something must be done.

3. Terminally Hip

The truth is that I really like staying up on what’s happening. I’m definitely not as hip as I was when I was younger – I like to think that the perspective of age offers some buffer to the slower synapses that accompany it – but I’m still reading and listening to music and following the arts and learning to use technology. This is a great world for the curious, but a confusing one too.

Our connected world provides a virtually unlimited number of information sources, and each has the potential to lead to any number of detours and distractions. Without self-discipline, days go by, and months, without measurable progress. Without clear focus, life devolves into little more than survival and self-deception.

Moments of self-awareness, and the discipline and drive that come with them, are followed by a confusing array of stimuli, carefully arranged to provide the delusion of progress. Meetings and emails and the last episode of extras and here comes another technical innovation or gadget or object or bit of news, perhaps containing a nugget of truth, with anxiety inducing consequences. What if I miss the next big thing? What if there is a wave coming, a tsunami, and this particular bit is its harbinger?

4. Something Must Be Done

The biggest question then, is how to prioritize without turning into some kind of militaristic asshole (with all due respect to the militaristic assholes out there). First of all, there have to be limits. And there has to be some sort of time management. So, here’s the plan:

I am working toward (but have not yet achieved) an empty email inbox (or inbox zero as they call it at 43 folders. In a perfect world, each email is looked at exactly once, then acted upon (responded to, filed, or deleted). Just like in the old days with real mail. Also, I’ve switched from checking email every ten minutes to every half an hour (though I sometimes check in between), and I sometimes turn off email when I’m working on a project. Currently I’m at 73 emails in my inbox. Hey, it’s progress.

News, blogs, RSS feeds, and the like are only checked at prescribed times during the day (first thing in the morning, with coffee), and meetings are only used when necessary (lunch). Objectives are prioritized, and what has to be done gets done (more or less) based on this plan. Meetings are designed for efficiency, and work is structured to allow for clear delineation between different projects. Feedback loops are encouraged, and iterative modeling and prototyping are applied with dizzying effect.

At least that’s the plan.

5. Learning to Listen

A little over a year ago on this site I mentioned a story I’d heard about Norman Schwarzkopf and how he handled time management. His approach focused on achieving the single most important thing he had to get done each day – after that everything else fell in place. There’s something to that idea, but it’s just one part of the puzzle.

In the past year I’ve posted about 90 articles on this site, roughly one every 4 days or so. Some are brief, some more considered. Some that I would have liked to have posted have disappeared from memory, and there are some that I wish I hadn’t wasted the bandwidth on. I’ve tried to be respectful in what I post, not adding to the noise of the world. It’s one person’s perspective, but at least it’s measured.

For me, seeing through the luminous fog has more to do with listening than talking. Taking the time not to rush through the day, really spending the time understanding an idea deeply, less quantity and more quality. The breathing, the stretching, the awareness of space and time.

It’s not the four hour work week, but it’s a start.

Hadley sent over a link to the this site with photos by Pieter Hugo: The Hyena and Other Men. Incredible.

It’s official. Riverside Cemetery has been made an honorary RiNo.

RiNo is the River North Art District. Now the only art district with its own cemetery.

Read more on the RiNo blog, and read the RiNo Crow here.

Continuing the mobile phone theme, I came across a presentation by Jan Chipchase at the TED conference (via the putting people first blog at experientia.com). I’ve posted it below if you want to check it out.

I’ve mentioned Jan in the past and have subscribed to his blog, future perfect, for quite a while now. I’m always intrigued by what he is doing, much of which is only peripherally involved in the design of future mobile phones. The TED presentation is a good amalgamation of his thoughts, and has some pertinent insights.

For those who don’t know his work, Jan is a researcher for Nokia focused on how people use technology. He has travelled all around the world to see what people carry with them. Pretty much worldwide, people carry three things with them; keys, money, and (increasingly) mobile phones. These are connected directly to our most basic needs (as described by Maslow), specifically our well-being in a physiological and safety sense. Mobile phones are right there in the mix; they provide us with a way to provide four our own security and that of those we care about.

Through his observations, Jan comes to a number of conclusions, including the following. In the modern world, our experience transcends space and time. Your sense of your identity is out of date. The only way never to forget anything, is to have nothing to remember, and you can only do this by delegating what you need to remember to those around you.

This reminds of a story I once heard about Prince, aka the artist formerly known as the artist formerly known as Prince. As the story goes, Prince has all his clothes designed for him, and none of the clothes have pockets. If you don’t have pockets, where do you keep your keys, money, and mobile phone? All that has to be delegated to somebody else. So maybe it’s true that importance in the world can be measured in inverse relationship to the amount of keys you carry. Janitor, lots of keys. Presidents and Queens and Princes, no keys.

Those of use who have keys (and money and phones) all behave the same way when we leave a room; first, we check our pockets (or purses, I suppose), and then look back into the room we came from to be sure we haven’t forgotten anything. I sometimes do the opposite. I’ve got a couple pair of pants that have a clever new design adaptation; a side pocket constructed to hold a mobile phone. This is terrificly convenient, but occasionally presents me with a mental challenge, especially when I’m going through the security line at the airport. More than once I’ve set off the metal detector because I forgot I had the phone in its special sleeve.

From a design perspective, Jan points out that the uses of technology are determined by the adopters, and are very often different from what we expect them to be. Product designers provide the basic functionality, and the extensions are added by the users. For this reason, he says he doesn’t know what the future will look like. If we want to design the future, we need to learn to listen.

Over the past month I’ve been conducting research for the University of Denver for various web-related projects they have going on. As part of this process, I interviewed a number of undergraduate and graduate students about how they find information, connect with their friends, and generally how they use technology in their daily lives.

Without getting into the details, there were some fascinating general findings, especially regarding the use of cell phones. I’m no Jan Chipchase, but I think this information may point to some interesting opportunities for future design.

Most of the students I talked to weren’t early adopters of technology, so they were mostly interested in finding ways to use devices in a way that makes their life easier.

As you would expect, all the students have cell phones, and they are very important to them in staying connected with their friends and family. They also all have laptops, and there is a clear separation between the two devices.

None of the students I talked to use their phones to browse the web, though a few were considering getting an iPhone (or a similar device) sometime in the future once it’s easier to connect to wifi networks. This is a particularly important on the campus given the requirement for authentication to connect to the university’s wireless network. But mobile web browsing didn’t appear to rate very high on the interests.

Similarly, mobile email wasn’t something that the students used on a regular basis. Unlike business users (like myself), with our addiction to our ‘crackberries’, the immediate access to email isn’t that important to students. They are okay with accessing their email via their laptop, and if they don’t get an email message immediately it’s not a cause for concern. Usually they check their email (often through a web browser) as they’re getting into their work process. Check email, check a couple of news sites, and then settle in to do your homework.

What was much more important to most of the students I spoke with was “mobile messaging”. They used messaging to connect with their friends, sometimes to chat, but mostly for ‘transactional’ messaging. “I’m running ten minutes late”, “Are you going to be at the coffee shop tonight”, that sort of thing. All who did this said it was so much easier and more efficient than talking on the phone.

In fact, most of the students had little interest in talking on the phone at all. One said that he only uses the phone on Sundays when he was calling home to talk to his family. Other than that, messaging was the preferred way to connect with his friends.

Unlike myself, these students have all grown up with instant messaging, and using their phones in this manner is second nature to them. It’s what they are comfortable with, it’s easy, it’s just how things are done.

I’ve recently gotten myself into a new phone contract, and I ended up with a blackberry pearl. I considered an iPhone, but decided against it as I try not to buy first generation products from Apple (not that I haven’t done it in the past - I’m still waiting for my first generation iPod to die so I can get a newer model) I find the email capability to be very handy, though the ubiquity of it can be a bit overwhelming at times, and I use the WAP web browsing from time to time. But messaging isn’t that important to me, and I’ll still resort to a phone call if I’m running late.

In some ways, I’m more of an early technology adopter than most of the students I interviewed. It’s not better or worse, just a result of what we’re comfortable with and what works in our particular situation. One of my favorite quotes came from a recently admitted graduate student; “it’s weird to be 24 years old and already feel like technology is passing you by.”

Tell me about it. Who knows, maybe I’ll give mobile messaging a try.

–
Note #1: Wired has an interview with the national champion of texting here. lol.
Note #2: Donald Norman, now a professor at Northwestern, says has this to say about texting in an interview with cnet:

If you’d asked me to predict texting I’d have said, “No, it’s really too hard. Jeesh, you need to type three times to get a ‘C.’ That’s ridiculous.” Not only did people learn it, but (they) learned it so well…So, there’s an adaptation for you.

The issue is not how tech-savvy you are, or how quick you pick up to it. I believe these are things that often take many hours to master…You just didn’t want to spend the next 20 hours of your life mastering it. But a lot of the kids, they have that kind of time to devote to it.

One of the more difficult parts of doing work without easily identifiable artifacts is describing what you do.

When I get asked what I do for a living, I usually answer by saying “design strategy and research.” Which almost always brings on a second question; “what the (expletive deleted) is design strategy and research?” At which point I wonder how much this person really wants to know. If I sense it was a throwaway, usually I’ll just respond by saying something like, “oh, you know, websites and stuff.” Then we can get back to the more important questions of sports and weather and TV shows.

But every once in a while there will be a followup question, and I’ll realize that either the person is either involved in the design business (or the design of business) or they are just curious about what differentiates design strategy from other forms of creative endeavor. I’ve tried various approaches to describing it, and heard or read of many others through the years. None of them are completely satisfactory.

Sometimes I’ll start in with my own niche, and discuss the importance of storytelling in the design process.

“Working from as clear a strategic goal as I can develop with my client or partner, I engage in a combination of observation and interviews, through which i develop an understanding of the persons who might be helped by the product or service. Then, this research is applied to the generative process through a combination of models, scenarios, and prototypes, often generated in a collaborative environment. Finally, we critique the alternatives and iterate to a greater level of fidelity.”

Then they say, well, yeah, but what do you do?

So then maybe I’ll move in with a quick synopsis of the Tim Brown/IDEO talking points about the value of Design Thinking. Or the idea of the ‘anthrodesigner’ (as put forward by Dori Tunstall), who encourages her students to become hybrid researcher/designers who are adept both in observing and creating.

Or maybe the description of Transformational Design as put forward by Hillary Cottam and the Red design team of the British Design Council in 2006:

Transformational Design:

1) Defining and redefining the brief: Whereas traditionally designers are brought in to follow a brief, the transformation design approach involves an analysis of the wider implications of a design problem.

2) Collaboration between disciplines: Recognizing that complex problems need to be addressed through a multI-faceted approach, we rely on collaboration for results.

3) Employing participatory design techniques: Advocating bottom-up design methodology - involving users and front-line workers in the design process. Making the design process more accessible to ‘non-designers’.

4) Building capacity not dependency: Transformational design seeks to leave behind not only a designed solution, but the tools, skills and organizational capacity to respond to change.

5) Designing beyond traditional solutions & ’systems thinking’. Applying design skills in non-traditional territories, and also creating non-traditional design outputs. ‘Systems thinking’ is the ability to consider an issue holistically rather than reductively.

6) Creating fundamental change: Transformational design aims high: to fundamentally transform systems and cultures.

Great, interesting stuff, and brilliantly done by firms like Stone Yamashita. But, it’s a lot to throw out at a cocktail party. Maybe there’s an easier way to talk about designing something intangible, or at least apparently intangible.

So, I was intrigued when I heard about this new idea, promoted by FORA, a Danish quasi-governmental group, called Concept Design. Concept Design is, according to the subtitle, a way to “solve complex challenges of our time.” There is not a whole lot of information on concept design available on the web (yet, at least), though the paper is available for download from the FORA site as a PDF file.

According to the paper,

Today’s companies are seeking answers to the question “what?”. What should companies focus on? What problems should the companies’ innovation solve?

In the past companies wanted answers to the question “how?”. How do we develop a new product? How should it be designed? How should it be marketed, and how should the company be organised to achieve the best solution?

This feels pretty accurate to me, though of course it risks oversimplifying the design process. Once concern I have is that the term ‘concept’ feels a little thin, for instance in comparison to the idea of ‘transformation’, though it does point to the formative stages in the process where design strategy is particularly appropriate.

The paper goes on to say

Concepts are solutions to unsolved problems or new solutions to problems that are solved in a poor manner. A new concept can be a product, a service, or a combination of products and
services.

The task of creating concepts is referred to as concept design. For the purpose of this study, a model was created to describe concept design based on the processes and competences applied in concept design. Concept design works abstractly with questions on what should be produced rather than on how it should be designed.

Concepts and business strategies are approached strategically, and multidisciplinary work is performed using a combination of competences from business management, social science and design.

According to the following diagram, concept design lies at the intersection of business, design, and social sciences.

What’s the difference between transformational and concept design? Perhaps concept design has the potential to focus more narrowly on a particular problem, rather than working on a the broader idea of organizational change, though certainly there is overlap between the two.

The writers of the paper did a great job of vetting their research, and the document includes case studies from a wide range of companies in Europe and the United States, including IDEO, Frog, Lego, Philips, Gravity Tank, BBDO, and others.

I’m not entirely sure if concept design is an idea with legs or not, though it has been adopted by the AIGA and appears to be a topic of conversation at the 2008 Torino World Design Capital events. At the very least it provides some new ideas.

And maybe something to talk about over dinner.

When the weather starts getting colder, there’s nothing better than some homemade onion soup. It requires chopping a lot of onions.

In “A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius“, Dave Eggers talks about how best to chop an onion. I was never quite sure what method he and “Toph” decided was the best. I have my own way of chopping an onion, though probably not the best way. I nip off the top and the bottom skin, and then cut the onion in two pieces from top to bottom. After removing the remaining skin, I slice each half as thinly as possible from end to end. It works well enough.

Dave was just awarded one of the TED prizes for 2008, along with physicist Neil Turok and religious historian Karen Armstrong. Seems pretty well deserved, between his work with McSweeney’s, 826 Valencia, and the Voices of Witness oral history program. I don’t know if he still has much time for chopping onions. Hopefully so. Chopping onions is good for your soul.

When I was nine or ten years old, I used to watch the Galloping Gourmet (Graham Kerr) on TV. I don’t remember much of the show, except that he always seemed to have a good time and man could he chop onions. I couldn’t figure out how he chopped so fast without losing a finger.

According to (possibly apocryphal) stories, Jack Kerouac died while watching the Galloping Gourmet on television. It was 1969, he was 47 years old, and I was 8 or 9. Now it’s 2007, and I’m 47 years old. I like to think we were watching the program at the same time.

Now the onions make my eyes water. Maybe it’s the onions.

Onion and Potato Soup, based loosely off a recipe from Family Oven (which isn’t a half bad recipe site).

6 onions, sliced in your preferred way
4 cloves garlic, crushed
Olive oil
6 small or 3 medium potatoes, in small cubes
1 cup sherry
8 cups vegetable stock
Fresh thyme
Bay leaf
1 tsp. Paprika or other savory spice
salt, black pepper, red pepper, as desired

Using a heavy soup pot, sauté the onions over medium heat and until they are translucent. Add the garlic, spices, potatoes, and continue cooking and keep cooking until the potatoes soften.

The onions and potatoes will stick to the pot; just use a wooden spoon to stir the browned bits back in.

Add the sherry and deglaze the pan.

Add the stock and simmer for another half hour or so.

To make it a ‘french onion soup’ top with some gruyere and a crouton.

Eat.

So, if you take the basic premise that we can model creativity and apply it to daily life, what does it look like? Maybe something like this:

Or at least it does in my world. Research is good, vital. Goofing off, very important. Building models, also a key. And if you want critical, I’ll give you critical. All and all, a good balance.