The resurrection of the flip-phone

Originally published on Feburary 18th, 2015

I recently read an article that flip phones have re-emerged as a “trend” in Japan. Some may think that this, being a trend, is superficial and it very may be. However, I would be lying if I didn’t say I missed the practicality and satisfaction which comes from being able to manually ‘flip’ open my phone to answer calls. There’s just something about being able to physically interact with something mechanical (or the flip-of-the-wrist-open coolness). I’d like to say it’s more of a ‘man’ thing, not dissimilar to using a Zippo lighter or mechanical keyboard, but don’t this would be fair assessment being that I don’t know the demographics.

Then again there’s the practicality of the flip-phone that we’ve ignored with the evolution to the one-glass smartphone (note that a ‘button’ of some sort still exists for a reason). For instance the move to actionable notifications has its benefits, but I can’t help but to think we’re missing the point that having a ‘lock screen’ in the first place. The flip-phone on the other hand, lends more confidence in that everything is hidden underneath a physical barrier. I for one think its worth the extra half second of inconvenience.

One of the biggest flaws of the ‘candy-bar’ style phone was it’s tendency to make ‘pocket’ or accidental calls because buttons were exposed to forms of pressure. For obvious reasons the flip-phone eschews that altogether. With my current Samsung smartphone (Note 4) I’m always a bit nervous that I’ll press something which activates either answering or declining a phone call before I’m able to take it out of my pocket because everything but the back cover has the potential to react to touch. To be totally honest, a lot of this is due to the industrial design of the phone itself, as buttons extrude, particularly the home, instead of being recessed a la iPhone. However, that extra bit of confidence that the flip-phone provides is a feature that is sorely missed.

I’m not saying we move back to what flip-phones used to be, but that we consider evolving it to the point that it’s a viable option rather than a trend. Let’s keep the touch screen, but give me the option to have the features that the flip-phone provides.

I can list even more valid reasons, including the hipster appeal, of having a flip-phone. The point is that I still feel there is a need for flip-phones to exist beyond their ‘burner’ and ‘low-end’ status. From an evolution to begin we can’t ignore the benefits of the past.

A brand that changes the world

Originally published on January 1, 2012

Branding/rebranding a large company requires a universal user experience. Visual consistency promotes a strongly focused perception of what a company is and is not. The more widely used a company products and services are used determines the difference between mere suggestion and conformity.

Its not a secret that success is achieved when name reference alone is enough to immediately ‘know’ it—to be able to understand through experiential-interaction rather than explanation. However whether this is gained through time, or persuasion makes a difference in how a company is perceived on a moral-level. Saying that you’re ‘not disreputable’ does not a honest company  make. Taking time to ask and test users molds honest attempt. Speeding through the process using quickly measured numbers and individual theories isn’t.

A company whose brand has world-wide influence, has the ability to change the way people use the web. They have the ability to undermine and redefine usability by eliminating choice. While changes may be efficient from a company’s point of view, it is entirely disruptive to everyone else. In this age where speed equals efficiency and affects revenue, having to learn a new ‘language’ changes the ecosystems and paradigms.

Whether a company’s solution is better is irrelevant when you take time and choice away from its users. A system has been created at the switch of a button, and right-handed users have learned to write with their left hand overnight. What may be ‘natural’ has become unnatural, and simply put, works. Macintosh users have been through this ‘Catholic School’ regimen before when Apple took away their floppy disks, and made them use one-button hockey-puck-shaped mice. Currently all new MacBook touch-pads are inverted and deemed ‘natural’. While this may work for a subset of consumers who are willing to make a change, you can’t expect the same with the Tower of Babel.

While there are other similar solutions and companies to choose from, they are hidden from most users. For those living in the Silicon Valley bubble, the existence of Firefox, Internet Explorer, Opera, Safari, Hotmail, Yahoo!, etc. is elementary. The fact is that most people don’t know or care what they use to get information on the web. How else did Internet Explorer become so widely used? Natural or not, learned behavior is faster than having to re-learn and adjust. The incorrect and irresponsible perception is that change is good medicine that needs to be forced down users’ throats.

‘Not being disreputable’ means having your brand adapt and be informed by the needs of your users. Thinking ‘visual uniformity’ is all you need to create a brand is short-sighted and works for products that most people aren’t dependent upon. It  is,  plain and simple arrogant.

When you’re a company whose brand changes human behavior there is an ethical responsibility to keep users productive while giving them choice.

Emotional design

Originally published on November 22, 2011

To understand what emotional design means, we must explore what emotion means, not in dictionary terms, but how we ‘feel’ it everyday.

Emotional design elicits a conversation between us and the world. It speaks to one of more of our basic senses—sight, hearing, touch, smell, and taste.

When it comes to our experiences with the web it is (currently) limited to sight and sound. Designing experiences for the web attempts to start a conversation with that in mind.

One common mistake that some designers and marketers make is that they focus on the initial introduction of sight and sound, but rarely engage in a conversation with the user. It’s akin to meeting a beautiful, charismatic person, only to have them walk away. People talk and admire movie stars and models but they can never say that they know what’s beyond the surface.

When we design for the web, we must keep in mind that we want to not only tell the user who we are but to let them know that we truly care about them as well. We can’t be pretentions or give an air of superiority, but truly listen and gain their respect and friendship.

As we design enterprise solutions we must not become door-to-door salesmen. We provide ideas and solutions that show that we care enough about their problems in order to help them solve the problems in their lives.

In conclusion, we need to truly listen and care about the user as if they were people.

Selfish design

Originally published on November 14th, 2011

Its difficult when clients get so into a project that they can’t get past the design of it in order to understand that it won’t translate to a completely different site with different requirements.

Its especially hard for me, because I fight the urge to ‘take’ from other designs, and struggle to come up with something completely original. If I can’t do this, I don’t feel that I’ve truly done my job.

It is easy to ‘port’ over a design, and in a lot of cases, people will be happy with it. Some even win awards even though they are unoriginal. However, what are designers really doing when they ‘copy’ trends? They’re doing it for themselves.

A lot of emphasis has been put on the ‘experience’. Words like ‘magical’ are synonymous with award-winning design. But its disingenuous to think that they are real solutions. The reality is that they can be self-serving to the point that they’re completely unusable. Design transforms into art. Art becomes the experience.

There’s a lot of emotion, some would call magic, found in art. However, art, good art, is subjective. Movies provide great experiences to some, but are just as likely to be a horrible waste of time to others. There’s no denying that art can be very ‘magical’. It doesn’t make it universally acceptable or understood. A great design experience should strive to be universally acceptable and useable to its target audience.

Its increasingly becoming a trend to designing sites to impress rather than to be useable. One example would be ‘parallax’ scrolling. It works great for some sites which integrate it into their message, but as a design mechanic on its own, it is an extreme example of bad, chaotic design with no thought behind it. Simply put, in most cases, they’re terribly ‘one visit’ sites which provide an awful and embarrassing user experience.

A website is not a movie and its not a work of art (unless it is). In most cases, its a way to communicate with the user, and to provide them with relevant information in a timely manner. Designing a website otherwise is a selfish act of masturbation.

Design exhaustion

Originally published on June 8, 2011

I previously criticized mentors who I felt had ‘given up’ on doing great work, but now I realize that they just got tired. The older you get, the harder it is to keep up, and the easier it becomes to direct. That coupled with the monetary incentives has enough to let go. Why be masochistic about it, when you can be rich and comfortable?

Creation and innovation is hard work. Its emotionally-charged, and because of that, it’s unstable and exhausting to keep going. Unlike other things in life, the act of creation gets harder the older you become. Its easier for the young to find inspiration in life because they lack experience. They ‘see’ things that the older have become blind to. They have the energy to see things through. Their insecurity gives them this. It feeds the need to prove themselves to the world, and the end product is not only glorious, but exhilarating.

Going back to the older creators, I don’t want to give the impression of ‘jadedness’. For, even though some of us take that perspective, a lot of us want to continue to create. Whether its takes the form of enabling those who are inexperienced or taking the self-immolating path of pushing forward, is dependent upon the individual.

There’s a part of me which is feeling the exhaustion. Scales are forming cataracts over my ‘mental eyes’ and my path is harder to see. Its like being extremely tired and seeing a bed. It’d be so easy to fall upon it.

But I’m not going to. I define myself as a designer, amidst all the struggle and self-doubt which accumulate over the years. Some would question the ‘self-doubting’ part. Wouldn’t we become more confident with age? In some ways we do. We come to understand our clients needs better. We understand how relationships matter, and how to work with others. The core is there. Its the media which is changing at such a fast pace. Print design took a lot slower to evolve, and yet, even print design is being propelled into change by the digital age.

So when it comes to the ‘self-doubt’ I speak of, its in regards to pushing something that is evolving everyday. I wasn’t born into this digital age, I adopted it, and, while I can fluently speak the language, I am not a native.

Other ‘adopters’ like I, must push ourselves more and throw off the shackles of ‘what can’t be done’. We are prisoners to our youth, to the past where communication tools were physical rather than virtual. When we explore design, we need to fight our instincts that ‘it can’t be done’ and adopt this generations’it can, and it will’.

I’ve been able to do this successfully so far, however I’d be lying if I said I worked a 9-5 job. I’d be lying if I said I didn’t do my ‘homework’ every waking hour, and lose sleep problem-solving.

I’d also be lying if I told you I’m ready to quit it all right now—that their isn’t a challenge I find uninteresting. Contrary to belief, old dogs can still learn new tricks.

After the launch

Originally posted on March 22, 2011

November 2010

As I write this, I still can’t get past the awe of designing a site that close to 2 million people have visited since it launched this morning.

Awe. I’ve don’t recall ever using the word, nor thinking that I would ever understand it, but here I am, dumbstruck in the relevance that one tiny group in Mountain View can make in the lives of others. Literally within seconds of pushing the site live, tweets started to pour in. Paragraphs appeared faster than I could imagine the human hands were able to type. It was as if people were hitting the refresh key on our URL in anticipation.

Why am I writing this? I would like to say that none of it is about pride, but I’d be doing a disservice to myself and my teammates who have worked relentlessly during the last couple of months to prove that great design can be done within Google. To show that, when relentlessly pursued and backed with the extra effort it takes to prove that design is powerful even when not exactly quantifiable, the investment in an engaging user experience can make a huge difference in both the cost and effectiveness of a successful website.

Post Mortem: Nexus S microsite

Originally published on March 19th, 2011

I’d decided to wait awhile to write about my experience working on the Google Nexus S site.

Designing is personal. Its a craft that can take an emotional toll. The long hours, the struggle to do something ‘better’ —it’s a byproduct of ego. One of the worst things that a designer can be labeled is being ‘unoriginal’. Criticism can be a bitch when it comes to design.

The best way to take negative criticism is to let it settle. Gather it up but don’t respond to it right away. Let all the fear, anger, and insecurity pale in time, and return to it afterwards. You grow as a designer when you’re able to scale back the blinding emotions and see things as objectively as you can.

I tend to place more weight on the negative comments than the positive. What can you really learn from the ‘pat on the backs’? The design looks great. People are happy. It’s getting a lot of page views. When it comes to either ‘here or there’ its really the ‘here’ that matters —I appreciate the support but I’m past the ‘there’.

After the Nexus S site went live there were a lot of positives, however what I found myself searching for were the negative criticisms. And I found them.

What I took most personally were the comparisons to Apple’s site. The comments were hard to swallow as they essentially stripped me of my role as a ‘designer’. It was saying I was unoriginal, and that I took ‘the easy way’. What good is a designer if he’s relegated to the role of forger?

Forget about the ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘aesthetically pleasing’ — a designer’s respect comes from their originality. Anyone can be a good designer by following the rules. The great ones are those who do something different whether its by chance or a genuinely unique way of thinking.

Saying that the Nexus S site looks like Apple put me in the ‘good’ category, and as any self-respecting designer knows, being ‘good’ sucks.

So now, after a couple of months (okay a month and a half), I will attempt to find my self-respect back by what I hope to be distilled objectivity.

Before I begin, I feel I need to be forthcoming and say that I spent my time at 1 Infinite Loop, and that I wouldn’t be the designer I am today if I hadn’t. It taught me how to be a better designer and I’ll leave it at that.

Self Assessment:
I think the site looks very similar to Apple’s. Does that mean its unoriginal or does it mean that its a straight-forward product a marketing site? I’ve wrestled with this comparison a lot, and my conclusion (after the weeping and gnashing of teeth) is that its both. Its an unoriginal, straight-forward, product marketing site. Its a good site, it’s a professional site, but it could be pushed further.

Being Honest:
Did I intend to copy Apple? I can honestly tell myself that, ‘No, I didn’t’. Speaking to other designers who have worked at Apple, I can tell you that after leaving the company, every project that follows is an attempt to ‘break-free’ from it. That being said, if anything, it was (and will always be) a struggle to not copy Apple.

It was a struggle because going against Apple means going up against ‘good design’. Doing something different than Apple means spending more time and effort into doing something that breaks the rules of conventional design. When it comes to following design principles, Apple is a by-the-book savant.

This is actually a good thing, and if given an ideal amount of time and resources, it would push a designer to break free from good and come up with a great solution. However, unlike Apple, a lot of companies are just starting to appreciate the value of investing in visual design. So in the meantime, I often find myself prioritizing and making the best with what I have. It means squeezing every ounce of creativity I can come up with to fit in a limited amount of time, and making myself a resource for things that power the success of the design.

Asset Control:
When I started the two month project, we didn’t have any product photography and looking at the budget costs, we wouldn’t get the amount nor the quality that we’d need to showcase the Nexus S and its features. It became clear right away that the only way to get the product photography right in the amount of time we had, I needed to have as much control as possible over the creative assets.

I had never done product photography before so most of the time I would normally spend on visual design, became devoted to studying, experimenting with different rigs, and post-production Photoshop. The phone needed to appear desirable and sexy —it needed to sell itself at a glance. It was the most important design element of the site, and I needed to have as much control as possible.

The design of the site is that it focuses on the device. If the device isn’t attractive or desirable to consumers, the site loses its value. Clever words, graphic details, flashy animations and interaction models help to make a site great, but are meaningless without content and purpose.

Be Mature About It:
Criticism should not be taken as an attack but an opportunity to be honest and aware of your design. Evaluating design criticism of whether or not the site looks like Apple’s I am able to understand that I every design choice I made was an appropriate one. It had nothing to do with challenging Apple design, but all to do with design itself.

As designers we should always evaluate our designs and ask ourselves the hard questions. Sometimes we may find that we don’t like the answers, but at least we can be confident in our response to others because it comes from reason and integrity.

Conclusion:
I am proud of the work that the team and I have done on the Nexus S site. Are there similarities to Apple’s site? Yes. Is the plan to make the new Google-y Apple-y? Of course not. Will we continue to design sites around content and the best user experience? Yes.

If anything, the core success of the Nexus S Site lays within what it represents. It shows that Google isn’t afraid of taking chances when it comes to design. We have proven internally that the numbers associated with the success of a product isn’t through compliance to standards, but by focusing on clean and appropriate design.

The Nexus S site is not a standard. It will never be a template for future Google design. It does however, prove that there is value in taking chances —there is value in focusing on quality design.

Shogunai

Originally published on March 19th, 2011

Ranting. Here’s the thing. Most feel the same way.

Life shouldn’t be so complicated. We get caught up in our own insecurities so much that the big picture gets lost.

We stop working with each other. We stop listening. We stop thinking.

Doesn’t that make us less than the people we should be?

When did we start seeing life as less than a large playground of potential and growth —one so linear?

How have we let politics keep us from progress? We’re a society which is unable to grow because we can’t see what’s truly important. Our ego makes the world so small that we feel confined and restricted.

I don’t understand politics, and why work stress, why political tip toeing exists to the point that we fear others as much as we fear losing our lives.

We are so much larger than our work. Work should enable us to progress the human race, not be subjected to it.

Take risks. You’ll fail, you’ll look like an ass, you may even lose your job, but you won’t lose your soul.

I see so much potential in every individual to contribute. I know people are asking the same questions that I am. You only have one chance, one lifetime to make a difference. Don’t waste it blindly following someone else’s agenda if you can’t invest yourself in it.

Don’t accept ‘It is what it is’, or as the Japanese would say ‘shogunai’. Look past the ‘barriers’ there’s always a way out.

What are you afraid of?

(You know who you are), this is for you

Originally published on March 19th, 2011

Hypothetical Situation

There exists a group at (Company) who refer and promote themselves as THE creative authority when it comes to pushing ’emotional design’ at (Company). They argue that their websites are (better) because they’re based on engaging emotion and are more media-centric. I’ve been to their websites. Sometimes Flash doesn’t work and, well, the experience is emotional indeed.

Engaging emotion must exist in good design. However its unbelievable to me how ignorant some designers can be when they think that emotion alone is good enough for the user experience.

The goal of a site should be to provide relevant content and to promote business objectives in a way that focuses on making it clear to the user what’s being communicated. Unlike television, internet usage is based on focused consumption of information initiated by user interest. Because of this, designing for the user must be meticulously thought out to accomodate for their specific needs.

Design fails when it plays on human emotion in order to sell an idea. It corrupts information and is dishonest in its manipulation of the user.

Emotional connection is important, but without an earnest desire to cater to the user, becomes an elaborate con. And that’s something that I can not stand by.

Every designer MUST be held accountable to their user/client. Every ‘t’ needs to be crossed, and every ‘i’ not only explained, but in a way that is meaningful to the user.

It really upsets me when designers attempt to establish a sense of superiority based on their self-assessed ‘experience’. Experience means nothing if not backed by servitude to the user.

I have absolutely no respect for designers who demand compliance via a bloated sense of self-importance, or their position within a company. And I have no patience for “hot shot” designers who feel as though they have been bestowed the right to tell people what do without the need to justify their reasoning.

As employees we CAN NOT work under an environment of fear. If we do so, we’re not doing our jobs and ourselves justice. As designers, we are tasked with coming up with smart, project-appropriate decisions. Unfortunately this is oftentimes made impossible by leaders who feel that they have the right to enforce an unquestioned agenda on those who work for them. As time and trial has proven, a business built on tyranny only works at Apple.

The design community is very interesting/predictable in that everyone has a tendency to find fault in projects of which they weren’t involved in.
I know this because I oftentimes catch myself finding the faults in someone else’s designs without thinking of context.

Sadly, it is well known that designers can be very passionate about their ideas, and because they’re so emotionally driven, it is frustrating to have to explain what can only be seen in the mind’s eye. For visual people, words alone aren’t able to express as much as color, music, imagery, etc. and so they get caught up on rely on ’emotion’ to explain their decisions. However, I want designers, especially those in a position of power, to realize that pushing ’emotion’ as a reason for design makes you look like an idiot. Even though its difficult, you must go through the process of translating what you see into constructs that others can understand.

As web designers it is short-minded and immature to think that a ’emotional experience’ alone will lead to adoption of new technology.

A design weighted heavily by emotion is short-lived. Perhaps this works for viral marketing campaigns, but lets be honest, how many of us has clicked the ‘skip intro’ button, or get frustrated when we return to a site and have to wait for the same ‘cool’ animation (or fade -see Apple homepage) to load. It may have been something to send links out to before, but afterwords just becomes insulting.

Marketing employs strategies to direct users and to get them excited about a product. A designer needs to be able to see past campaigns and realize that the bulk of their responsibility is to create a site that is useable and extensible.

The fact of the matter is that, marketing strategy is an evolving process. Building a site based on such an infrastructure without keeping in mind the user, will ultimately lead to failure. Again, think ‘Skip Intro’.

I’m calling out (Group at Company) because I feel as though they don’t respect usability. They don’t fight for the user. Their goal is to win awards, many of which do not take into consideration user analytics the measure the success of a site.

Why am I ranting about this? Its because it forms this ‘draft’ mentality where everyone is looking out for themselves and not for the user or the company they work for.

I’ve never been one to just give respect due to title or background, and I don’t expect the same from me. What’s important is how much respect they give to those ‘under’ them and most importantly, the user.

You don’t command respect without respecting the opinions of those with whom you work.

Director-level folks who rely on their egos, and use their position of power to drive the way they treat others are incompetent, useless, dead-weight.

Typography is not your brand, so don’t steal it

Originally published on October 9th, 2010

When tasked with creating an identity you have to ask yourself, “What will this logo mean to others? What brand equity will it gain?” You can’t do this by merely selecting fonts and playing a badge in or near it.

Typography by itself is a craft that should be respected as so and not used as a tool, but as inspiration when it comes to brand definition. Used in any other way, whether its kerning or resizing certain elements, is chipping away at the creator’s intended purpose. That purpose is to be used as a consistent style for content—not a logo. It is a disservice and unethical to use it in any other way other than inspiration.

Like typography, logo creation is also a craft built on inspiration and logical thought. In the case of a type-based logo, the design should reflect inspiration directly related to the context of a company’s brand. It takes this inspiration and develops its own unique form. In this way, it is ‘crafted’. Subtleties like ligatures, rounding of certain corners, are created from reason and adherence to uniform structure and balance. It may employ certain characteristics of a typeset, and should definitely not be the typeset. It needs to be re-drawn, crafted and refined with intention and an understanding of a brand’s essence. It must be able to stand on its own and be unique in a way that is both subtle and meaningful.

Simply put, a mark should never be able to be reproduced through simple keyboard strokes. Implemented in this way, the brand is reliant on the objectives of the typographer who created the type being used—objectives which are not in-line with a company’s reason for being. It represents a solution. It conveys honesty through refinement. And it reflects directly on the product that’s being sold.

Characteristics of different fonts are often forced to fit in with one another in creating brand identity. So, it surprises me when a client and vendor refer to their identity as a typeface. It should never be represented as such. You will never find a typeface that will feel entirely like your brand because a brand needs to have its own characteristic.

Great brands are built on unique characteristics and their mark needs to be defined by them. The solution will not be found within typefaces which were crafted to solve totally different problems.

Sometimes I wish my co-workers were robots

Originally posted on October 5th 2010

If only I could go to work and not have to worry about how others perceive me and vice-versa. Egos, assumptions (‘what do you really mean by that?’), can be physically and mentally exhausting.

Like today, I finally had it with a co-worker. I assumed that she was telling me how to design -an assumption I now feel is true, and that pissed me off. Its been going on for awhile now, but I’ve been ‘handling it’ by doing what she says. Even when she told me to write down exactly what she said and repeat it to her. I mean, seriously, how the hell did I end up in this position? (Cough) Corporation

So yeah, I raised my voice when she starts in with the ‘this is how you design’ crap. Its not that I’m not a team player, its just that I’m on the wrong team.

Stupid humanity and feelings.

Persuasive Technology

Originally published on September 26, 2010

I’ve been reading through the book, Persuasive Technology by B.J. Fogg, and have found his systematic breakdown of technological adoption very interesting. I just finished the chapter on Social Learning Theory which defines two ways in which we are influenced by others —Normative Influence and Social Comparison. Simply put, when it comes to adoption strategy, Normative Influence is dependent on peer pressure and Social Comparison is dependent on an individual’s assessment of themselves and how they compare to others.

Personally I’ve never been a fan of peer pressure and oftentimes find myself pre-maturely jumping on a grenade to disrupt the hive mind—not always a good thing (Google the importance of job security). I’m wired to see Normative Influence as a bad thing no matter what the moral intentions behind it is. That is why a non-smoking campaign such as ‘thetruth.com’ annoys me in its attempts to counter peer-pressure with peer-pressure. It has all the disingenuous plasticity of the ‘goth’ movement, where its cool to be uncool.

Status-based grouping by any name is one of the most base examples of ignorance and intellectual devolution. It has a short lifespan and quite ultimately fails to persuade as any form of independent thinking appears. Why? Because any form of group mentality is directed by an individual who is motivated through self-importance and has a clear agenda. Though it may be born of good-intention its susceptibility to the tyrannical is inevitable, and when it is revealed through resistance it breaks down.

Fogg writes, “In sum, while connected technologies can leverage conformity dynamics, they also can undermine the pressure to conform by providing non-conformists with an awareness of others who have resisted this pressure. This is a liberating use of persuasive technology, helping people choose what they want to choose—not what a peer group chooses for them.”

I hate to keep using the iPhone/Android example to defend my stance, but its a great and very relevant argument to make these days. The biggest criticism that will continue to plague Apple is that iPhone users are beholden to the ‘Apple way’. This is a PR nightmare that Apple will always have to deal with. Apple is no longer a company that encourages people to ‘Think Different’, but have crossed over to Microsoft territory where the scarlet letter is permanently etched into every product they sell. I don’t know about you, but I can’t help but feel sympathy for John Hodgman’s PC character in the ‘Get a Mac’ advertising campaign. Justin Long’s Mac character is such a snarky, evil little creep under his fluffy-white sheep’s clothing.

Becoming a victim of their former selves, and trying to convince consumers otherwise, is a fail. Perhaps that’s why Apple has begun to embrace their inner-Marxist by claiming they’re providing the best user experience by sacrificing individualism and choice. This is commendable. At least they’re being honest.

How to choose your designer

Originally published on September 21st, 2010

I’ve recently been asked by a colleague how she should choose a designer for a branding project.

Here are a couple of rules I would follow:

If a designer gives you a price quote or flat fee right away, don’t hire them.

Brand design isn’t an item that can be ‘bought’ off a shelf. It is something that is unique and crafted to suite a particular audience, and should speak to them in a way that is engaging and relevant. Because of this, time spent on researching and understanding is most likely to vary depending on a designer’s familiarity with the audience —and as we all know, more time = more money.

Test them

The perception of a company’s brand plays a huge part in their consumer’s decision to buy. Therefore, before hiring, you need to make sure that the designer understands your audience enough, and has the requisite skills necessary to make an impactful first impression. The only way to do this is to request that they share initial ideas/sketches with you before you commit to hiring them.

Simply looking at past work isn’t a solid indicator of ability. There are a lot of ‘coat-tail designers’ out there —designers who claim to have designed something, but may not have been an integral part in its outcome. This happens a lot with people who have worked on a team responsible for creating a brand, but didn’t necessarily create what they promote as being their design.

You need to be sure that the designer you hire can deliver based on their own experience and talent, or what you ‘see’ isn’t going to be what you get.

Expect, or rather make sure, that the designer wants to work with you.

Similar to job interviews, the decision to hire and commit to work depends on what both sides can give to one another. The designer needs to see investment in your company. Making sure that the designer you hire has a stake in your company —whether through personal growth or interest, etc., ensures that the work will be professional and that it not only meets your needs, but the standards that the designer holds themselves to.

Simply put, money should never be the motivating factor —if you find it is, realize that you’re throwing integrity out the door.

Open for business

Originally published on September 12th, 2010

There has been a lot of talk about ‘openness’ in the technology sector. Ironically,  the definition of ‘openness’ itself is ‘open’ to interpretation. However one thing everyone seems to agree on is that openness is the ‘white-knight’ of, well, everything. Companies are fighting to convince us that closed-system is the epitome of all that is evil. It allows companies to dominate and control the way we think and act —its communism, and should be put on trial without question. What people forget is that, when you take the ‘company/man’ out of the equation, when you start thinking more ‘openly’, you start to notice that ‘closed-systems’ of the past have created innovations which ultimately defines humanity’s relationship with technology today.

Apple’s iOS has been criticized as being a closed system because it restricts developers from creating applications not abiding by Apple’s rules of ‘user interface guidelines’ and development tools. In their defense, Apple has gone so far as boldly stating that they’re the ‘first major computer company to make Open Source development’, and that they ‘remain committed to the Open Source development model’. While this is true of OSX, it is not for iOS. When it comes to developing an application to run off any of their touch-devices, developers have to go through the process of code review by Apple before it is made public. Along with this, the developer is only allowed to sell their product through Apple’s AppStore and/or iTunes Store. In this respect, Apple as a company is not one-hundred percent ‘open’, and not nearly as committed to Open Source methodology as they claim to be. When it comes to iOS, they defend their ‘closed’ stance with a means to ‘quality-control’ and a consistent user-experience. I for one don’t have a problem with this. I don’t want to go back to the days where shareware from no-name companies would crash my computer, and I certainly don’t want to have to learn a new way of interfacing with my iPhone. What I have a problem with is the inconsistent and false marketing tactics they use to spin the definition of ‘open-ness’.

With that said, there is a justified fear that arises from having a completely open-system run on a myriad of products. This has always been true, however it hadn’t surfaced as a major issue until touch-screen devices started saturating the market. Because touch-screen interaction is in its infancy when it comes to adoption, it is extremely important time to define the user experience —when it comes to defining gestural behaviors, Apple has the upper hand. They control/restrict the market due to patents, first to market, and early adoption.

Like it or not the Android OS may have won the numbers war, but Apple has won the user experience war precisely because of their ‘closed-system’. For example the ‘pinch gesture’ has become an expected way of zooming in and out, so much that any attempts to stray from it will ultimately fail. In many ways, Apple has defined what is a ‘natural’ way of interacting with touch screen devices. This is an example of how a ‘closed-system’ can succeed in outweighing ‘open-ness’ —and its not necessarily a bad thing.

Concluding that a ‘closed-system’ will always succeed over an ‘open’ one is like comparing ‘democracy’ to ‘communism’. We’re simply thinking of both in the wrong way. We’re judging broad terms, and not what defines them. Simply put, a closed-system still outputs positive results. You can have democracy built on capitalism, which ultimately, is defined by an individual’s choice to buy. Companies don’t control what product sells. If this were the case, the stock market would be much easier to predict. Amidst, Apple’s solidified definitions of user interactions, there is still room to innovate. When we remind ourselves that we are individuals the notion of a controlled-environment is a fallacy.

History has shown us that there will always be the right to choose, and that our fears of company-dominance are unjustified. Think of it this way, if there wasn’t, we’d all be using Internet Explorer.

Am I pretty?

Originally published on September 6th, 2010

When you design for emerging technologies you’re able to live life in fast-forward. Designs which take months to create are replaced with new technologies and ideas in a matter of days. Designing within the realm of impermanence has given me an insight to life that would normally take a lifetime to learn.

I’ve built my career, somewhat unconsciously, focused on ‘virtual inspiration’. I create structures that exist beyond an electronic window into a world that isn’t physical. I have been inspired by other creators in this realm. I have experienced its power to captivate and change the paradigm of thought and reason, of art and design. Unfortunately, I have also experienced the impermanence of technology, for technology, by its very nature, can not exist without change.

History teaches us that everything has a beginning and an end —in human terms, ‘a lifetime’. As individuals our experiences, as well as our contributions are limited. As a collective we live forever through ideas.

Recently, I walked by a shop which sold trophies and commemorative plaques. I visualized the seams in the hollowed plastic, the areas where the foil painting had either failed to cover or had chipped off. I saw hundreds of golden angels standing on silver-plated columns with marbled pedestals. They had no nameplates.

How many of these idols have we built our careers on attaining? The question is simple. Do you define yourself by creations built on impermanence, or are you engaged in the creation of ideas that ultimately contribute to the collective of humanity?

Praise and appreciation are important to creators. They remind you of your worth, and that you are making a difference in the lives of others. They help to keep you moving forward. However, just remember that at the end of the long journey, your ideas —these things that aren’t awkwardly glued to a flock of gold-plated angels, will ultimately shape the future.

If you’re in online marketing and strategy, this will piss you off

Originally posted on September 6th, 2010

I’m just going to say it. I have yet to see a successful example of online company marketing.

Marketing campaigns may work for posters and commercials, but are distractions on the web. Some may challenge my notion when it comes to Apple, —but you know what the difference is between Apple and other companies are? Simplicity. Its all about the product. The imagery is of the product, the message is geared to their audience and everything is said in one sentence. When I’m looking to buy something from company ‘X’, I don’t want to presented with a paragraph of generic adjectives such as,

“Discover breakthrough interactive design tools that enable you to create, deliver, and optimize beautiful, high-impact digital experiences across media and devices. —etc..”

I want to see features, and I don’t want to have to search through a site to find them. Compare the above example to the following:

“An expanded ProRes family. Powerful new ways to collaborate. Even tighter integration between applications. The leading post-production suite just got better.”

Both quotes are taken from landing pages describing a suite of products. The difference? The first example can be used to describe most creative, digital media applications. The second starts with a feature specific to the product being sold (ProRes), and speaks to the viewer in more specific terms. Words and phrases such as ‘collaborate’, ‘tighter integration between applications’, ‘the leading post-production suite’ shows that the company, knows their audience, isn’t condescending, and very specific. What makes Company ‘X’ fail even more is that it adds more text to the example shown above, before showing the product. On top of which it pushes the actual products being sold and their calls to action below the fold.

Let’s face it, most people on the internet have a form of ADD when it comes to clicking through sites. Unless they’re on a site geared towards content (news, blogs), they scan and navigate to where they can find exactly what they’re looking for. Throwing marketing pages in the midst are roadblocks to information, and slow the process down. Especially when they’re not relevant. Sure, they can be awesome and inspiring, but it rarely helps to sell a product if its built on metaphors. It’s noise —especially to repeat visitors. Its disingenuous and transparent —a painted wall that bottlenecks the process of getting to information.

My advice? Hold your breath for as long as you can and, upon exhaling, describe your product as best you can.

UPDATE: Marketing has an important strategic role in shaping a company and seeing it succeed. However, they should not be given complete authority over design. Trust the people you work with.

Fear and the Yes Man

Originally posted on August 17th, 2010

When I worked at Apple I sketched out a picture of Steve Jobs. Mind you, it wasn’t a caricature, but a legitimate portrait. I sent it out as an email attachment to a group of folks asking ‘Do you know who this is?’. I merely wanted to know if my drawing was accurate enough to be recognizable. As expected I received no response. I then printed the illustration out and brought it to one of my colleagues asking the same question. His response was ‘Yes, I know who that is, now take it off my desk’. This was my first real view into the ‘fear’ that a lot of people, especially within large corporations, feel when it comes to upper management. Admittedly Steve Jobs is a particularly strong entity to be trifled with, but the story is the same for the lesser known ‘gods of management’.

Here’s my problem with it. It sucks. It reduces productivity, and sacrifices one’s integrity. As an employee you are hired to give your input -or at least should be. It does nobody any good to be ‘agreeable’ for fear of losing ones job. Job security is important, but what’s even more important is that you contribute to a team.

As children, we’ve all known that one kid who agrees with everything and doesn’t express their own negations nor opinions on a particular subject. For instance, one day Stevie says his favorite apple is the green one, to which Jonny exuberantly agrees. The next day when Stevie says he’s changed his mind and likes the red ones, Jonny proclaims the superiority of red. While this may be part of growing up for some, it unfortunately carries into adulthood for others.

I’m not saying that one should be disagreeable for the sake of it. However, they should be able to express their own opinion without fear, even if it may differ from that of their ‘superiors’. Good leaders don’t rule by fear, but through trust and collaboration with those who are experts in their field. Dictating through fear, while it may work for Steve Jobs, is harkens back to a sense of childish superiority.

I understand that there are a lot of factors involved. I understand that fear stems from the need for job security, and that in some companies (bad ones in my opinion) it is a necessity to survive. To those who find themselves in such predicaments I place no blame. Circumstance can be a bitch. However, for those of us who are in a position to speak up and don’t, those who are afraid of having a CEO’s illustration placed on their desks, there is no excuse for such fear. These are the folks that bitch about their bosses behind their backs and do nothing about it. They’re miserable and, quite frankly, useless.

As an employee your role is to influence and to be part of a team whose goal is to push your company towards success. And VPs be damned if they don’t recognize the contributions of those that work ‘under’ them for they will ultimately fail.

Rant: Nokia, the case of no clue

Originally published on August 13, 2010

Nokia is making a serious mistake in refusing to use established platforms such as Android. It is a simple fact that developers would rather not have to learn a new language to publish for a limited set of users. It’s true that Nokia has a huge share of the European market, but this is sure to change due towards their arrogance (view article link where Nokia VP mentions that adopting Android would negatively affect Nokia’s ‘destiny’). Seriously, what is MeeGo and why would anyone want to develop for it when Android has been adopted by hundreds of companies world-wide? This is clearly a case where VP’s of companies don’t have a clue of what’s going on in the current market. It doesn’t take a business degree to know that this is going to be a major mistake. No wonder why their CEO is being ousted. Too bad their VPs aren’t any better.

Android, the people platform

Originally posted on August 12, 2010

I now am in possession of two phones. I place them in either side pockets of my jeans which leaves my keys to go in the back. Admittedly its a bit uncomfortable and asinine, but such sacrifices must be made for ‘usability studies’. They take up all the room in my pockets, and, as a friend reminded me, are giving an equal amount of radiation to my hanging fruit.

After one week of having both, I can say with absolute certainty that there will be an ongoing coexistence between the iOS and Android platforms. They both have their faults, however what they do well they really exceed in.

The ‘HTC Sense’ UI is amazingly easy to navigate through once you spend some time with it. However, notice I said ‘spend time with it’. The iPhone on the other hand is intuitive from the start -you just can’t beat the ‘one button to rule them all’ feature. I admit that when switching between the two devices, an act which in public makes you look like a total douche, I find myself reminding myself to press the back button on the Evo 4G.

Amidst usability differences, I’ve found that camps have formed around each platform not so dissimilar to that of Mac and Unix/PC users. I suppose this is natural being that each platform has been independently created by Mac and PC/Unix developers, however its the alarming adoption rate of both which has been unrivaled in any device for a while.

I find it interesting how the news reports on how much larger the adoption rate of the Android platform is opposed to iOS given that the iOS is limited to Apple devices and because of this, can’t possibly compete when it comes to the open-environment Android provides to any manufacturer. I’m not an economist, but I feel that this ‘fact’ falls under the ‘duh’ category.

Being a designer, what I am interested is in how each platform goes about usability. How do you get from one application to another? How to switch between them? What is the buying experience like?

The iPhone definitely has the upper hand when it comes to how to input queries and get desired outputs. However the Android, especially when interacting with the ‘Sense’ UI is coming very close and that says a lot for it.

The reason for this is because Apple has had control of the market for nearly five years. In such time, it has successfully ‘defined’ gestural navigation, making it so any divergence is perceived as being unintuitive. Apple deserves all their accolades for making a device that even a grandma can use (believe me, I’ve seen a few). And that is a huge accomplishment. Being first, and being smart about it has its rewards.

On the other hand, the fact that the three-year old Droid is compared, and in some cases seen as superior to the iPhone, means a lot more. There have been plenty of companies which have tried to compete with Apple in the past and failed, such as Microsoft’s Zune (and various other Microsoft products). Google’s Android is not one of them. I can’t stress enough how important it is to consider its time to market vs. Apple’s two year lead start. In tech-years this is an insane accomplishment. Sure there are a lot of things that could be better, but the fact that Android is an open platform means that it isn’t anchored to any ‘bad ideas’. For instance don’t like the way you input text? Then download Swype. Don’t like the experience of the default Android UI? Create a better one like what HTC has done with Sense.

The Android platform allows for more experimentation not only for developers, but also visual designers. Sure, there will be mistakes made along the way, but we’ll learn from them as a collective and not behind the locked doors of 1 Infinite Loop.

Pleasing the Burger King

Originally published on August 9, 2010

Emergency. Sense of Urgency. Project A. Project B. Project C. Needs to be done yesterday. Stress moves us, but also exhausts. What is Project B, and how does it compare in urgency to Project C, or A? Am I going to even remember what any of these projects were which made me feel as if my life were on the line? Will they fulfill on their promise to change the world in some way? How many projects have an impact -a long lasting one that deserves an exchange for my life? The stress of every project takes a bit out of me. I believe that it eats away at my life span just like smoking cigarettes.

Who am I working for, and why are they so important in my life? Some leaders know what they’re doing. Most leaders are driven by self-righteousness and impose projects which have no purpose, and provides no value to society. Millions of dollars are spent on one person’s half-baked idea. An idea with no research. An ill-informed idea out of touch with what their audience is concerned about.

At Adobe, thousands of dollars are spent on the color of buttons, 4 pages, fake benchmarking graphics. Who are the people who are spending this money and how many jobs are affected in their failure? We call them ‘stakeholders’, but is it really their jobs that are at stake or those who ‘fail’ to meet their baseless projects?

Names. We are a corporate society which puts a lot of weight into names. We stress about pleasing ‘Anne’, ‘Andy’, ‘Jonny’, without question. The only thing that matters is that they make decisions which they are inclined to think are ‘golden’, regardless of those who may know the market better than them. We forget that they are individuals. Individuals carry with their own aesthetics. The smart ones know how to separate their aesthetics and to trust those who understand the market better than them. They are the ‘gods’ of our industry and we must please them in order to ‘survive’. We sacrifice what we know is right based on numbers, and from being ‘in the weeds’. Most of us know how to separate our aesthetics from understanding. And yet we ‘stress’  because we are forced to do work that is based on ignorance.

Workload is not necessarily in proportion to stress. However, workload has become synonymous with stress because we are forced to do work without understanding or the belief in what we’re doing is right. To a person who believes in their work, that their work has a purpose, the amount of time put into it yields not stress, but a huge sense of accomplishment upon completion. For this person knows the virtue of their toil. They understood the purpose from the beginning and have come to an agreement with its value. These are the projects that will have/deserve true names and memories associated with them. For these are the projects from which they grow.

The leaders of these projects are those we come to respect. They come down from their perch, and speak to us in a language we can all understand. They trust us, and we trust them. They know that they are not designers. They know that they are not experts at information architecture. They trust us and create projects, and spend their money on informed sources, on people, not on numbers. If you give those a choice between A or B it is still your A or B they are deciding on. There is no C, D, E, etc.. Intelligent leaders understand this, and are not afraid to take risks, not afraid of challenging the ‘Bean Counters’ who have somehow made it to the top. They also understand that the perpetually changing societal events which shape our world shape business, and that adapting their business model must follow in synch. And thus, consultation with those whose expertise they lack must be part of an evolving workflow.

Anyone who watches ‘A day in the life of Adobe’, being one of the ‘Top companies to work for’, can see that it is not about the work, but about the life outside of work that our workplace provides. Shouldn’t it be more about believing in the work that we do?