Last Monday, I attended an IxDA event at the Adaptive Path studios. The talk, “Herding Cats and Taming Lions,” was given by Jon Littell, a user experience director from Hot Studios. I had no clear expectation of what I was to hear, and so with an open mind. The event was great, with a pleasant pre-presentation meet & greet period, and great turn out. Also, the cheese and crackers were dee-lish.

Littell brings his background in Psychology studies to bear in his approaches to facilitating, and proved to be a great presenter, offering a wealth of psychological concepts that can be tapped to understand individuals and get the most out of people who are taking part in group brainstorming.

A couple of key concepts that I was able to retain include the notion that any facilitator must enable participants to express themselves in a way that is in line with their own needs. Using personality type maps, Littell pointed out that people are motivated by- and like to express themselves in different ways. I’ve been part of many brainstorming groups and I will say that the quality of the facilitator is usually essential to extracting the value hidden within the hearts and minds of the brain stormers.

He highlighted the efforts of an outfit call The Grove, a band of consultants who practice a method called ‘graphic facilitation’; roughly, a way to guide conversations using visual cues and mapping to capture ideas and propel the collective thought processes. Also of note is the de Bono Hat concept, also conceived as a means to enhance the thought process, but more specifically a method to describe unique psychographic profiles that then may be adopted by individuals or groups as they engage in disucssions.

My descriptions above are clearly inadequate in their attempts to capture Littell’s presentation, but the larger point remains: the IxDA hosts terrific events that draw a group of talented designers and terrific speakers. People pay thousands of dollars to attend ‘conferences’ that contain lots of the kind of ideas that you can find in talks like this, for free.

Taking Stock

It’s been a few days since DUX 2007 ended and I have spent some time thinking about the event, reviewing my notes, letting the deep thoughts marinate. Overall it was a terrific conference, easily the best one I have attended. It was not without flaw, but taken on the whole I have no doubt that it was time and (corporate) money well spent.

Frankly, a major appeal of this year’s DUX was the location: Chicago. This is one of those self-fulfilling prophecy sorts of things, I imagine. By holding the event in such a central and desirable location, the organizers attracted more and better speakers. This pays dividends to the attendees, but on the other hand Chicago is an expensive city.

DUX Presentations: A mixed bag.

I was fortunate to attend the Monday tutorial by Kevin Brooks: Storytelling in business presentation and design. (I will share some of what I learned in a later post). For me it was a terrific way to start the event. It was a storytelling workshop, in effect, and though the focus on applicability to business presentations was minor, Brooks’ teaching style, the smallish class size, and the half-day format all contributed to a terrific start to DUX.

With the Tutorials portion occupying most of Monday, the main event started at 4:15pm with a semi-random series of talks that were a good preview of the mix of style and substance that we’d witness during the following two days. Some talks were overly academic, pie-in-the-sky experiments, others were visionary and conceptual. Some straddled the boundary between academia and practice.

Simplicity & The Information Firehose

There were two standout presentations from the first group. First, BJ Fogg’s video-delivered examination of Simplicity. He is working to develop definable measurements of simplicity, and with a few clear statements, helped the audience grasp his work. It was a fun, engaging, effective and enlightening presentation, and the only one delivered solely via video.

David Pescovitz‘ presentation on Sipping from the Information Firehose was an entertaining and exuberant look at how technology can help us sift through the age of zillionics and access relevant and meaningful information. One example: Picture yourself walking through downtown, while a digital readout projected inside the lens of your glasses, shows information such as your current location, instant access to customer reviews of a restaurant you are looking at, or real-time information on physical presence of people in your social network.

On the other hand, some of the talks were all but indecipherable. I foumd it difficult to cull the meaning behind or application of the SpiderCrab, Bi-Polar Laddering (?) and AnyPhone studies. These talks, however, offered a taste of the more eccentric* elements of the conference that we would be fed over the following two days. They were academic and experiemental in nature, like many others at the conference. And I was lost.

Overall

The conference was dense with fascinating peeks into emerging concepts, novel studies of human behavior impacted by technology, and glimpses into technologies that lay just around the proverbial corner.

The high concentration of dissertations and presentations of findings lent the event an overly-academic focus, but on the bright side this kept it from being a collection of predictions and product previews of private-beta social apps.

Regardless of particular subject matter, I was disappointed by the some of the speakers, many of whom appeared to be delivering oral versions of their findings papers. The accompanying PowerPoint prezos, collections of bullet points projected and then read to the audience, were often sleep inducing.

Meanwhile, many in the audience were busy multitasking. I took notes in my new Moleskine, thoughtfully provided in the conference welcome pack. But anyone with a BlackBerry, iPhone or laptop was reading, posting, texting, and emailing, or generally busy doing anything but listening attentively.

A major disappointment was the lack of actual social media interaction for the event. There was no official blog, no DUX twitter, no live online question submission tool, no speaker ratings or feedback mechanism. I have no doubt that any – or preferably all – of these types of tools would have kept the audience more engaged.

Wait, there’s more!

The conference was so full of new ideas and great speakers. Over the next week or so, I will post additional entries on DUX, focusing on particular talks and themes that emerged from the conference.

My iPod rough patch

I recently hit a rough patch with my iPods: first I lost my Gen2 nano. Then while using my iPod video on the treadmill, the earbud wire got caught on me and flung my iPod to the ground. Luckily the iSkin saved it from a fatal blow, but it does appear to be a little less stable than it once was. At the same time, my earbuds got munched in the treadmill. So I have been running and working out without my music for a couple of weeks now (an awful thing, right?), and clearly am in need of a replacement iPod to accompany me on my workouts and commutes.

The Replacements

Thus, recently I made a trip to my local Apple store to behold, caress, and otherwise inspect the new iPods (nano, classic, and touch versions) to determine their appeal and possibly buy one. I have to say that I was, if not disappointed, underwhelmed.

The classic holds essentially no appeal due to the fact I already have a 30gb iPod that looks almost identical. Yes, a 160gb drive sounds nice but aside from use as data storage, not really something I need at the moment. The touch is a different story: so similar to the iPhone, but without the AT&T contract. This feature is, at once, attractive and repellent, since the lack of cell service frees you of your monthly $70 bill, but then again without cellular internet access the novelty and utility of the device is radically diminished.

Which, appropriately, leaves me with the nano as my contender. I have been a huge fan of its preceding generations, all the way back to the iPod mini, and have owned both mini and nano gen 1 and gen 2 models. But the new one leaves me cold. The form factor lacks the slick appeal of its ancestors, the screen is bigger but not for any practical purpose, and the interface has added silly superfluous background images – for no apparent reason.

I think Apple faced a dilemma with the new nano: the screen had to be bigger, but (for some reason) could not mimic the touchscreen of its more expensive brethren. So a clickwheel (and thus the space to house it) was required on the face of the machine, effectively defining the new form.

A better idea

After spending some time dealing with my disappointment and alternative solutions (I am going to buy a last-gen nano!) I think I’ve come upon a novel design solution that would at once a) push the iPod design envelope further ahead; b) allow the wow/sexy factor of a larger screen and slick proportions and c) avoid the cost and hassle of a touchscreen device.

A superior design would be to place the clickwheel on the back of the iPod, leaving the front surface to house only a large, 3″ diagonal widescreen. The clickwheel, housed on the rear surface, would appear and function like it always has, but when being used an overlay image would appear on the screen, to facilitate ease of ‘blind’ usage. That is, you hold the device in your hand but caress the back of it to manipulate the menus and functional navigation.

Bang! There you have it: a radical evolution of the clickwheel, a sexy new form factor that bears a family resemblance to the the big daddy iPhone, and a compact, must-have device that retains the ease of use iPods have always been known for.

What do you think?

Do you ever encounter a product – physical or virtual – which is so enjoyable to use that it makes you want to use it? I’ll bet that there are a few of them. Such products – personal electronics, shoes, iPods, massage toys, or whatever – are amazing examples of the hugely positive impact we can find create with great design.

For designers, great design doesn’t just motivate consumptive behavior, but our own ambitions and conceptions of what is possible. As an ATM interface designer, I have always strived to create a luscious, friendly and ultimately enjoyable experience by making attractive, intuitive, and even delightful screen designs.

Of course a pretty screen overlaying a marginal product will never equal a great product – lipstick on a pig, as the saying goes. And often we designers feel helpless, beaten down by product managers or technology teams who deny our awesome ideas their right to live.

But still, when that chance to work on a truly innovative, robust, or cutting edge product comes my way, I burn the midnight oil and champion every improvement to customer experience that I can. It is worth every gray hair, every new wrinkle around my eyes, and whatever tension and anxiety I might incite.

Why? Because this might be my chance to create a product that is so enjoyable to use that people might just want to use it, and – who knows – maybe next time when they have a transaction to do, they’ll pick the product I designed, instead of waiting in a teller line or whatever their old behavior might have been.

Gruber just told me that the new iPod touch is super slim, much thinner than the iPhone. And, just because the iPhone touchscreen interface is so much fun to use, I sat here and tried to create conjure up justification as to why I could really use a new iPod (I already have 3!). (Note: I came to my senses before I did anything crazy).

The point is that great design is enticing, and for designers, it can serve as a reminder to what our practice can strive to be in its highest form. So when you are stuck at your computer, burning the midnight oil, just try to remember that one day, when your design finally sees the light of day, your work will translate into a better day for thousands of end-users.

And that is why we design.

There lay a vast chasm between concept and production. Between thought and reality, between wireframe and beta. It is here, in this vast but dark space – where specs are fleshed, usability is tested, corners are cut – where we find the distinctions between the good and the bad, the regal and the pedestrian, the whole and the half assed.

It is the province of excuses, of multi-generational plans, of technology limitations, and compromise. It is the home to assumptions, expectations, and laziness.

This land of details, where an impressive concept can descend to a mediocre product, that differentiates a great user experience from a horrid one. This land of details is the battleground of all designers, the time and space between the hatching of the proposed design and the release of the product, is where we earn our stripes.

First, the design must be tested. It is true that great design is instinctual. Yet, even the best amongst us needs to vet our concepts to some degree. Second, rough edges need to be smoothed and details must be explored and brought to light with the same passion and innovation of the original design. Finally – and most difficult – comes the hardest, least glamorous work of most designers – presenting and fighting for your design.

Between bean counters, programmers and project managers, it seems there is never a shortage of people with ideas on how to dumb down simplify your design, or streamline it, or bring it in line with corporate standards, or modify it for the sake of implementation, until it might bear no resemblance to your elegant concept.

That battle represents the holy grail of great customer experience. That result – or lack thereof – is what I will spend my time and effort looking to celebrate (or despair over, as appropriate) – within the columns of Eye Forward.

I look forward to sharing my thoughts, criticisms, and insights with my readers. I hope that I am able to find and celebrate those details that make my job so exciting. And I hope you find my thoughts and analysis worthwhile, and join me on this journey and exploration.

Welcome!