I’m thinking I need a little fluff today, how about you?
Recently, I’ve seen quite a slew of examples of business cards that address questions I’ve always had about the value of the card as an object versus a ceremony. The results are gorgeous, but in a “different” way. Concepts and functionality make sure these cards *definitely* won’t end up in the trash can. What do you think?
Ramiro Pareja Veredas of Spain wanted a business card that would make an impression. His creation can be converted into a USB drive by punching out two of the corners. It can store data, works as an oscilloscope, datalogger and PIC trainer, and packs the CPU power of a Spectrum ZX. Click the image for more.
A laser-cut, punch-out "spirograph" art-machine. See more here.
Not the most exciting of the group, but fun at parties! Ok…no…
Designed and fabricated in a single night, their card contains all the parts needed to build a brushless DC motor. The only downside to the design is that you need a separate controller to actually make it run, however I'm sure that could be fit into a second card.
Combination business card and drawing template for organic chemistry
This makes sense for a mechanical engineer, but it looks like fun for kids and adults alike: make a business card (or scrap cardboard) into a small paper stock rubber band catapult!
Another great idea for a business card, Adrian's laser-cut card transforms into a handy little caliper.
Remember that excited feeling you had at the beginning of a project where the sky was the limit and you were chomping at the bit to get started conceiving your next, greatest masterpiece? It’s now three-months later and you’re biting your nails raw in anticipation of the 3pm presentation of your concepts to your customer. It’s been a great exploration, you’ve done your best work, researched the heck out of the topic, and yet you are still praying they will love your ideas. What’s wrong with this picture? You may not know it but this situation is exactly the situation you don’t want to be in. The problem I’m illustrating is the conceptual disconnect that is causing you to lose sleep hoping they won’t dissect your concepts or worse combine them (not to mention that you are showing more than one concept). It’s the fact that the people sitting in the boardroom don’t know what they are about to see. Put bluntly, if your client is going to be surprised by your concept presentation deep into the project, you are risking failure. Sadly traditional methodologies encourage this pattern and the potential disconnects that often arise. To us, it’s just gambling.
How do we do it differently? We put our clients to work. A good friend of mine often refers to “Consultant’s Hubris” or the feeling that as a consultant we know more than the client. While we may be an expert at what we do, we hardly know the issues and opportunities the client faces on a daily (yearly) basis. We are not experts in their business, period. Face this and become more powerful.
Our contracts require client participation, sometimes significant hours weekly. When we kick-off we ask our client to designate a “steward” who will participate in the project heavily. The steward must have deep experience within the client organization and products we are working with. They are a Subject Matter Expert (SME).
We start with a working session to clearly define goals (or at least the first draft of the goals) and plan out how we are going to attack them. Following this are short 2-3 week work cycles (sprints) that involve twice-weekly working sessions where the client-steward and team are locked in a room discussing, researching, sketching and prototyping. Because our people are very experienced, they guide the steward’s ideas to merge with relevant trends and technology and result in beautiful solutions. At the end of each sprint we evaluate our collective success, present status to the larger client organization (gather additional feedback) and plan the next sprint. At the end of the project we have developed one concept with the steward that is not only extremely relevant but also co-owned. That’s right, the steward owns the solution because they co-developed it and they actually help ’sell’ our collective solution to their organization as we develop it. Of course this means they are circulating pencil sketches and prototypes well before the final presentation, but they are also translating the thinking into meaningful dialog with their colleagues. It’s very powerful to watch. The best part is we together are all heroes at the end and if you can make your client a hero, you’ve done your job correctly.
The first thing people ask me when I talk about this approach is how we handle the “bad” ideas stewards bring with them. The answer is communication. We’ve had stewards bring us wireframes of the application with full expectation that we would build exactly what they had specified. We embrace their concepts and talk directly about them with the steward. We explore the concepts that inspired them and the needs they are trying to solve. These concepts are immensely valuable windows into the mind our partner/client. During this conversation we share experience, industry trends, competitor approaches, and user-centric best practices. We do the drawing – together we are each the best at what we are. I’m proud to say that in every project we used this approach, the results have been stellar. The solution is something both we and the client are immensely proud of.
Because this method is designed to break down the walls between the client and our team it works very well with companies who have stakeholders with competing needs. Our process works very well in this “federated” situation because we incorporate stewards from each department in our working sessions. The debates happen in real-time and if they can’t be solved on the spot, they are resolved within the week with follow-up discussions.
There isn’t enough room on our blog to talk through every detail of this approach but if you’d like to learn more about this process we’re happy to help. Drop us a line or post-back here and we’ll be glad to share. If you like we can present our approach, train your team, and even collaborate on your next big thing!
We realize you specialize in CGI for film and advertising but you are making the rest of us, across a lot of different industries, look bad. Please do your best to reduce the amount of coolness you exude from your website so the rest of us can put food on the table.
This site is amazing. We’re still wrapping our heads around how they pulled this off. Hats off to the dev team, whoever you are. When you click the link, choose “North America” and “USA” then skip the intro. Enjoy the delicious particle mayhem.
Last week I attended a conference at the University of the Andes in Merida, Venezuela. The International Congress of Aesthetics (Simposio Internacional de Estetica – Arte, Ciencia es Technologia) brought together philosophers, writers, scientists and others together to discuss the role of written text, ideas and their ability to create aesthetic experiences through semiotic analysis.
Professor Edgar Yanez Zapata invited Aleksandra Giza, a professor of design from Northern Illinois University and myself to give several lectures to faculty and students of the School of Art and Design as well as present at the international congress.
Merida is a town nestled at the beginning of the Andean mountain range and runs along a ridge that is overseen by Pico Bolivar, over two miles above the city. For over 450 years the town evolved into a small city of about 20 square kilometers. The University of the Andes is the main function of the town and its impact is felt at all levels of life and activity.
There were four presentations given:
1) Introduction to Design Methods focusing on a contemporary perspective of design methods building on the original discussions in the early 1960’s and the publication of John Chris Jones seminal 1970 book “Design Methods.” Misunderstood and often maligned as a concept, design methods began as a way to question purely scientific post-war advancements and proposed a more integrated, multi-disciplinary perspective to integrate logic and intuition into a stronger approach to identify and solve problems. The presentation will focus on what design methods means in 2008, and how to structure and apply concepts to both problem solving and problem seeking.
2) Managing Ambiguities : The Role of Decision Modeling and Visualization focused on the development of diagrams and maps that described statistical and geographical relationships and the advancements of cognitive theories of how humans make decisions. The premise of the presentation focused on how the visualization of data through different content lenses can provide humans the needed cognitive and workload assist to provide options when faced with making decisions.
3) Urban Design Assistance Teams : A Different Approach
A Regional Urban Design Assistance Team (R-UDAT) is learning by doing, a type of accelerated practicum/charette to help towns and municipalities in distress. Teams interact with a variety of local stakeholders as well as to regional legislators in hopes of securing resources to implement UDAT recommendations. Randallstown, Maryland, a town of 30,000 residents in northeast Baltimore County was the backdrop where landscape architects, design architects and architects with experience in public policy, a traffic engineer, and a graphic designer mobilized to help Randallstown seek its potential.
4) Chicago : Innovation of the Past, Present and Future focused on the history of Chicago and innovations in architecture and engineering such as the modern development of the steel i-beam skyscraper and the load bearing cassion foundation which transformed a marshy prairie into one of the 25 largest cities in the world. The presentation highlighted the Village of Oak Park, 14 kilometers west of Chicago and home to Frank Lloyd Wright’s early architectural career as well as on key Chicago architectural icons that are not usually highlighted with a short discussion on the city’s bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics.
The presentation for the congress was attended by about 150 people as there were concurrent presentation sessions. Most of the attendees were focused on written language that describes the world and can generate aesthetic experiences using Sassurian frameworks and models. My presentations focused on Percian semiotics which extended linguistic semiotics into any form of thinking (metacognition, visual and written).
The second presentation to the congress was part of a panel that Edgar Yanez Zapata put together that addressed the role of digital technologies in aesthetic thought. From my observations, most conference participants would read short papers to the audience. A few had electronic presentations that endeavored to share richer stories.
The last night of the conference there was a small dinner at a wonderful bar called Mogambo (Chama Hotel). We had the opportunity to sit next to three philosophers from the University of Venezuela at Caracas. As you may surmise we ended discussing issues of reality, meaning and how subjective or objective reality is (or is not). Over beer and wine (a necessary ingredient) we did not come to any firm conclusions, but it did raise some interesting ideas.
Over the weekend, Aleksandra and I were invited to an evening with faculty from the Art and Design department at the house of Argentinian architect Carlos Caminos and his wife Donna. Their home is nestled on the side of a hill designed by Simon, a Rhode Island School of Design graduate. The simple home is beautifully appointed with artwork, functional objects and the history of this interesting collaborative couple.
We talked late into the evening about design, culture and other topics as Aleksandra and I moved around the house. I would like to thank Leo Chacon, John Villarroel, Carmen Grisolia, Eduardo Araujo, and Julie Colasante for making time out of their hectic schedules to share cultural ideas. We also had a wonderful dinner with Nory Pereira Colls, Dean of the Art and Design school at ULA.
I would like to thank Edgar Yanez Zapata, Director of the School of Art and Design for suggesting the visit, coordinating all activities and making Alexandra and I feel at home in Venezuela.
It was only a matter of time before someone miniaturized eInk technology to become the digital paper all of us Sci-Fi fans (read nerds) have been dreaming of.
Plastic Logic has just announced the release of a new eReader technology that looks very exciting. Not to seem skeptical but we are hoping that their “environmentally friendly” marketing campaign also includes the retraining of the millions of workers currently employed by the paper industry. We love trees more than the next guy but bored, unemployed, angry loggers scare us to death.
I recently attended the Information Architecture Institute Idea 2008 Conference, October 7-8 in Chicago. The theme of the conference was ” . . . on designing complex information spaces of all kinds.”
What was intriguing about this particular conference was the diversity of people, both in professional and geographic terms. There were graphic designers, interaction designers, technical leads, managers, and oh yes . . . “information architects.” What was interesting about the attending information architects was that they came from so many backgrounds to become an information architect. There were actual classically trained architects that became IA’s, there were designers that were IA’s and so on.
When Richard Saul Wurman coined the term Information Architect in the late 1980’s, he was an architect that was designing travel books (Access Press) and came up with a term for designers that created information intensive artifacts. Since we cannot really agree on what the exact meaning of “information” and “architect”, I have come to the conclusion that merging the words into a concept would be difficult having hired several IA’s professionally. There is little agreement of what an IA is, and even what their outputs are. This was evident at the Idea conference, that there was no attempt in defining the term.
The first speaker was blogger David Armano who spoke on “Micro-Interactions in a 2.0 World.” A well-known and dynamic speaker, David took participants down a very rapid terrain of design, marketing and business through technological innovations. His central premise is that we are moving from passive consumers to active participants through existing social architecture technologies – not custom applications. Since all of our devices are internet enabled, the notion of a traditional browser experience is giving way to smaller more intimate digital apps that do one or two things. We as users cross-link these apps together. He used the term “life streams” to name this process of “engage, enable, and empower” our actions through a model of “usefulness, utility and ubiquity.” David also articulated new digital ecosystems such as the Nike Touch which uses “engagement” of “deposits” and “withdrawls” with several micro-functionalities bundled together. Social networks by their very nature amplify communications and he asked the audience what their “passion point” was.
Elliott Malkin, an artist from New York discussed “Information in Space.” His passionate and precise presentation went down a very indirect route that got me very excited. His initial metaphor was the hassidic concept of an eruv, or a physical demarkation between a secular world and a religious world using the same space. He referred to this psychographic space as having strong conceptual power for the intended group and for what for most people would not even notice. Unfortunately, I thought he was going to bring the metaphor back to digital technology and social architecture, but instead he discussed using digital technology to create a virtual eruv that could be monitored without rabbi’s going out to check if the eruv physical demarcations were intact. The implications of this metaphor in discussing how a shared space could have unique “functionalities” for different groups at the same time holds great promise.
Jesse James Garrett of Adaptive Path presented “Envisoning the Future of the Web.” They worked with the Mozilla Foundation in exploring the future of web browsers. Their concept is called Project Aurora. Now, when dealing with the future of anything, especially technology, it is difficult since we tend to use established conventions and behaviors and link it to a future that people can understand. Star Trek did it best by taking human behaviors and linking them to technologies that did not necessarily need to describe their inner workings. As viewers, especially hooked viewers, we understood the galactic federation model and the value system of the show to put the expressions and technologies in context.
With the future of a browser, Adaptive Path focused on augmented reality, or the overlay of digital information on the real world where there will be data abundance and the question will be how to we visualize, focus and manage all of it cognitively and socially. Processing power, storage capacity, bandwith and graphic capabilities of computers will impact how we interact with each other through the digital cloud. “Context awareness,” “natural interaction,” and “continuity” would allow for more natural collaborations. Each of us would have a semantic profile and with geolocation, would allow for very rich interactions between people where ever they are. Two main questions arose from the audience. What was the time horizon of Project Aurora? Jesse stated they had a 10 year window into the future (this would be the equivalent of 40 years in technological terms). He said they had to balance “compelling” with “plausible” in their vision. My view was that their vision was too contemporary and linked to current “plausible” scenarios. The second question was that their concept could be viewed that the browser was an operating system. Jesse made it clear that they did not want to address the operating system vs. browser question, but in my mind the two converge in their scenario.
Chris Crawford a former game designer for Atari presented an interesting perspective on “Linguistic User Interfaces.” His perspective on intelligent systems is that smart computers that could interact with humans using extensive language patterns is not realistic. This is due to the Sapir/Wharf hypothesis that inside the human mind language and reality exist together. Chris’ interesting take is that with games, a model for a computer to interact with humans is much more manageable since the worlds are much smaller. He further elaborated that software, verbs define the program and is core to the human/computer interface. With most current software, as the verb count increases, accessibility and expectability reduces. 100 verbs is the limit for most users. Chris is currently developing a linguistic user interface (LUI) for programs that can create stories. I found his perspective very compelling.
Alberto Canas, of the Institute for Human and Machine Cognition (IHMC) presented a surprising presentation called “From Meaningful Learning to a Network of Knowledge Builders.” IHMC has created the popular language mapping program CMAP, which I have on my computer. What was informative about his presentation on CMAP were examples of its application (pun intended). Knowledge essentially are concepts that are linked together with prepositions to make a relationship (this was a wonderfully simple definition). Humans have created written language to describe concepts that cannot easily be illustrated. CMAP are concept maps linked by phrases to form propositions. I already knew this in principle. Alberto then showed the power of CMAP through an ongoing project with the Panamanian government giving school children CMAP to describe their lives. The power of CMAP is that users can link images and web page addresses to their maps and can also link concept maps to other concept maps. They are essentially mini-websites which are non-linear. I will not look at CMAP the same way and believe that its potential is not fully understood by a large cross section of users.
Jason Fried, founder of 37signals presented a lucid lecture called “Getting Real.” I had not heard Jason before, but am a heavy user of Basecamp and a real fan of its simplicity and how reliable it is. Jason is a real visionary and their development process flies in the face of every convention that most digital consultancies use. They do not “plan” anything, do no “specification” documents, and do not use “actor or personas.” They focus on building things and figure out how to do it over time. Keep things small, use sharpie markers as the finest resolution when sketching ideas, and only have a core set of functions (a simple core). Part of me was aghast, but I quickly saw the logic to their process. If you are designing for yourselves and then find users, the 37signals model is perfect. Unfortunately, if you collaborate with clients to define the problem and then facilitate understanding, then the 37signals model will not work. However (you knew there was going to be a “but”) I totally agree with his concept of “scratching your itch” and doing things with passion.
Aradhana Goel of Ideo gave one of the most thought provoking presentations called “Emerging Trends, Design Thinking, Service Innovation.” We have all heard of IDEO and it is one of the most influential innovative firms (along with Pentagram) merging design and engineering. Aradhana was trained as an architect and has only recently become involved with service design. Her perspective on human factors was clear and in alignment with my understanding. What was powerful was her ideas around linking human factors with trend factors. Human factors focus on digging into context, while trend factors find the context. She went on to compare and contrast these two areas and how service design is a logical next step in productizing intangible experiences.
Bill DeRouchey of Ziba Design gave a very direct and engaging discussion on “The Language of Interaction.” His deconstruction of everyday visual clues that we take for granted and their constant reinterpretation and reapplication to other situations was informative, common sense, but insightful.
Overall, there were several key themes that all speakers seemed to focus upon:
1) Browsers are giving way to other internet enabled experiences
2) Windows, Icon, Mouse, Pointer system is under stress
3) Transaction is more than money
4) Link several apps, not one killer app
5) Focus on experiences, not just interactions
Upon reflection, I found this conference very fulfilling and reinforced certain convictions, challenged others and provided a very positive mental workout for me (which is what good conferences should do). I would like to compliment IAI for the organization of the conference and the lunches with different groups of people was enjoyable. There were twelve speakers in two days, interspersed with group lunches around the Chicago loop.
The IAI did not go down an exististential vortex of what an information architect is or is not (though it came close at times), which would have been a divisive and somewhat unimaginative exercise. Instead they linked together several strains of interesting ideas and left the participants to decide what it meant to them.
I was listening to NPR and they had another story about crowd sourcing and a gym shoe company in Seattle that was using these communities to develop surface design on standardized gym shoes. This got me thinking about the role of people in designing products and services directly vs. trained designers facilitating observations and discussions with users to gain insights in both articulated and unarticulated needs.
However, the deep spread of the internet has allowed people to directly interact with companies to provide feedback and help design existing products and services. Focusing communities of interest around their knowledge and expertise and iterating variations with standardized components (like surface design on t-shirts and gym shoes) and having online voting or based on purchasing behaviors, have the “better” strains rise to the top is an intriguing trend:
Threadless, a Chicago-based T-shirt maker whose design process consists entirely of an online contest is a good example of this trend.
DaWanda’s Style Lab section, consumers can create products with their own individual style and have them made to order. (from www.springwise.com)
Crowd sourcing does need to be managed, and is not as ad-hoc as it may sound. Companies manage these communities for maximum impact of user-centered innovation. There are more sophisticated strains of focused crowd sourcing around more complex opportunities:
RedesignMe is a great Dutch website that is now engaging with product manufacturers to establish “RDM Challenges,” through which a new product concept is presented and the site’s 1,000 or so active members are asked to react to it. In exchange, they are rewarded with RDMs—RedesignMe’s online currency, which is convertible into products in the online RDM Shop such as mp3-players, game consoles and gift cards. (from www.springwise.com)
Elements, an eatery being planned to open next year in Washington. Crafted by a “beta community” of some 400 participants, Elements will serve raw and organic locally grown vegetarian food in an environmentally sustainable way. (from www.springwise.com)
What does this mean for designers? Precedent had positioned the designer as the arbiter of function and form. Rehabilitated or new products were completed by designers and brought to market. Crowd sourcing is in certain ways disintermediating the role of designer by going direct to customers to have them create new or revised design strains.
An interesting company that is taking crowd sourcing to another level is Kluster. They have created Private Klusters designed to enable collaborative brainstorming on myriad different questions by allowing invited participants to share their opinions on a relevant, customized set of criteria. (from www.springwise.com)
Spot.us a nonprofit that lets any individual or journalist post an idea for an untold story in the local community. Professional journalists then write pitches based on those ideas and place them in the site’s wiki, where members of the community can view them and vote—via micro-pledge—on the stories that are most important to them. (from www.springwise.com).
Cambrian House began as a crowdsourcing community using the wisdom of crowds based approach to discover new business and technology ideas.
Designers have embraced ethnographic and observational research to create new objective skills to experience what is and look for pattern and opportunity. With crowd sourcing, the role of the designer will need to be delineated as a type of reasoned broker to sort and prioritize a community’s ideas.
Are the aggregated power of crowds a wise resource for companies? For simple solutions, creating different variations can provide needed diversity for products where customers want many alternatives. For more complex problems and ideas where there are many variables, I believe that this model can easily fall apart. There are too many levels and ways to interpret and approach something to bring desired value.
I have not really heard the design community address the effect and challenges of crowd sourcing. When Larry Keeley edited a Society of Typographic journal named “People, Not Markets”, he emphasized that designers need to address the real needs of people not the marketing needs of companies.
Twenty years later, we are moving in the right direction. The question is in what direction?
Nate Burgos sent me a link about a new institute that is being created between Stanford University and the Hasso-Plattner-Institute to investigate design thinking. They defined it as a methodology that “melds an end-user focus with multidisciplinary collaboration and iterative improvement to produce products, services or experiences.” Their theme is – innovation – which is no surprise.
This got me to think about how this term has fluctuated since I heard it twenty years ago. My approach to the topic was around several attributes:
Wicked Problems
A Focus on Customers/Users
Finding Alternatives
Ideation and Prototyping
Qualitative Performance
The question is how is design thinking different from other types of thinking? If we take a Western European approach to thought, then critical thinking models revolve around observation, asking questions, research, making new connections and creating a model that integrates new insights.
If you agree with this foundation, then there would be little differentiation between design thinking and other forms of thinking. Can non-designers do design thinking? What is the role of the designer if design thinking is practiced by a wide variety of disciplines and professions?
What has remained constant about design thinking is linked to an improved future. Victor Margolin, in his book The Politics of the Artificial stated “Design is continuously inventing its subject matter, so it is not limited by outworn categories of products. The world expects new things from designers, that is the nature of design”
I used to have conversations with fairly progressive designers twenty years ago about design thinking and that design was as much about frameworks, strategies and approaches as about media artifacts. At the time, they were not ready to embrace this idea and only wanted cursory approaches that could add more legitimacy to the making. Contemporary designers have finally embraced in enough of a critical mass that design is as much about thinking as making.
A few years ago John Thackara proposed to the London Design Council the Project Red Initiative which would have the UK design community address specific social, political and economic issues facing the United Kingdom. The backlash from the design community that the initiative was not in the bounds of design.
The good news is that design thinking, design methods, and design management are all coalescing to create new opportunities for designers to collaborate effectively with other professions around wider areas of interest that are not discipline specific.
Designers have an ability to interact with the the unknown, and the shifting relationships between the meaning of things. This new type of designer is linking design (as a plan) to outcomes that are not necessarily objects. It is here that methodology can help and this is where design thinking comes into play.
At DUX this year one of the first presenters started their presentation by stating, “Let’s not call it innovation anymore, let’s call it relevance which is really what it is.” The ‘it’ he was referring to were the aggregate insights found during ethnographic analysis.
Ethnography is all the buzz these days because it has been repeatedly shown to provide deep insights into consumer behavior and it’s cheap. Unfortunately, what he was really saying was that observation provides insight and from that relevance was the desired result.
Relevance, simply stated, is finding the way a system most naturally fits into the target consumer’s current lifestyle. The iPod is relevant because it is extremely easy to use (both to get media on it and to play that media), beautiful, and a status symbol to some extent. Relevance is very important when dealing with consumer acceptance.
Unfortunately, relevance only deals with current patterns. Innovation occurs when leaps of faith and creativity are socialized and patterns change or new patterns are created. Innovation changes the world. Let’s agree to strive for changes for the better. Relevance is nice, but innovation is excellence.
Recent Comments