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.
Posted by akallish on November 21, 2008
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.
All video presentations are available at Boxes and Arrows.
Posted by akallish on October 22, 2008
Tanagram participated in The Presidents’ Symposium of Chicago on September 9th at the University of Chicago Gleacher Center, sponsored by the Entrepreneurship Institute. This yearly event brings local executive management together to discuss business trends.
Joseph Juhnke and Adam Kallish participated in two panel discussions. Joseph Juhnke participated as a panelist in a “Web 2.0″ forum moderated by Scott Pemberton of Productive Strategies. The first ten minutes of the session were spent proving the term “Web 2.0″ is nothing more than a rallying cry from a few years ago the group focused on the use of technology as an enabler to connect businesses and customers in new and meaningful ways. Other panelists included Kristin Brown (Productive Strategies), Kelly Cutler (Marcel Media), and Matthew Klein (Fuor Digital). Approximately 45 people attended this session and participated in the very lively discussion.
Panelists attempted to illustrate the wide variety of potential social frameworks can offer a company looking to build closer relationships with their customers. We talked about the value of traditional online marketing as well as viral techniques, that the new web was made by the people for the people (User Generated Content). There was plenty of time allocated to discuss attendees personal questions.
Adam participated on the panel “Transitioning Your Business From a Commodity to a Value Added Provider.” The moderator was Phil Krone of Productive Strategies with the participation of Bob Jonas (The Christman Group), Allen Schiefelbein (MassMutual Financial) and Lyell Clark (Clarke Mosquito). 45 people attended this breakout session which addressed issues of how business can avoid commoditization.
The panel tried to emphasize the need for self-examination, discovery with prospects, leadership attributes and how to differentiate from competitors. Much of the audience was interested in how to have a more effective sales process. Adam’s theme on the panel was to address the needs of prospects and their client base to identify greater value.
As panelists we were invited to attend the other sessions and we found them very engaging. An excellent event overall, but it’s invite only. Start networking now to attend next year. We’re are!
Posted by Joseph Juhnke on September 11, 2008
A very popular topic at DUX ’07 was social networking sites. By my informal tally, every presentation of the 3-day conference made at least some reference to Facebook/MySpace/LinkedIn and similar sites in order to provide a context to their main subject. I counted 12 presentations that focused specifically on social networking. These lectures addressed issues such as where the space is going and how they’ve been adapted to address traditionally offline tasks, such as smoking cessation. Some examined Second Life, a 3D rendering of Social Network (one of many ways Second Life can be defined). Peter Mortensen and Conrad Wai of Jump Associates gave an interesting presentation on the individual trust social networking sites require for them to be successful.
Bringing this topic back to Tanagram has sparked an exciting debate within our office. Do social networking sites connect or disconnect people? Our staff seems to be divided on this. In the disconnected camp, the argument goes that a Facebook post is short and uninformative. It is a cheap replacement of a phone call that allows me to check in on someone on my time and at my convenience without having any real interaction with that person. I am not required to invest any effort for this interaction and so the value of it is less.
In the connected camp, the argument is that these sites create a new line of communication. People can continue to connect via the phone and email but now you can interact quickly via Facebook to see what a person is up to at this moment. Each form of interaction (social networking, email, phone, blog) has its own value and it is not a choice of either/or communication.
I’m firmly in the latter camp. I do have a Facebook page (go ahead and look me up – I’ll gladly add you as a friend). I admit that I’m not a social networking guru. I’m perplexed by some of the more bizarre interactions it fosters. A couple of my friends – Mark and Andrew – are currently waging between them a month-long zombie war. I see daily updates of this such as: Andrew’s Bishop in the Church of Zombie regulated on Mark’s Lieutenant Zombie! Victory dances ensued. Huzzah! There seems to be no end in sight to this war.
Still, Facebook has allowed me to find friends that I’ve not spoken with in years. I readily admit that some of these friends I would probably never pick up the phone to call because I can’t honestly think of anything I would want to say to them. Perhaps I shouldn’t call them friends anymore? Yet that supposition seems harsh and I do wish them well even though I don’t seek a personal conversation with them. I think there is value in these brief connections allowed by social networking sites. I’m able to see the daily happenings of a friend’s life and I think there is an intrinsic value to this.
What strikes me most about the disconnected argument is that this line of reasoning is quite similar to the arguments against email 10 years ago. Back then email was viewed as a lazy way of writing a letter, lacking any sort of thought or consideration. This too is similar to the debate over proper cell phone etiquette as the mobile device became widespread. Calling a person to chat while you waited for a plane suggested you weren’t willing to invest the time for a proper phone call when you were at home (I believe a Seinfeld episode captured this argument a while back). I think it’s odd we now hold email and phone calls as the ideal alternative to social networking.
Social networking sites, in my opinion, offer a give-and-take proposition that lets us come out ahead. Our interactions through these sites may be less thought-intensive, certainly less self-invested, but they give us much more everyday connection. Since we don’t live our lives in a vacuum – seeing some friends on Facebook but also communicating with them via email, phone, and in person – it is possible to augment our relationships through these sites.
Posted by Joseph Juhnke on November 29, 2007
DUX 2007 is a wrap. We came, we saw, we laughed, we loved, and we even learned. I thought I would spend a few characters writing up some observations. I think first, it’s always important to understand the massive amount of work that goes into putting together one of these events and I know the team that gave us DUX ‘07 was spared no amount of grief. They did a truly admirable job and I would like to thank them.
Thank you!
DUX is not TED, nor is it HCI International, but instead fits nicely in-between them where Living Surfaces used to flourish. A day doesn’t pass when I don’t reminisce about the buzzing energy and enthusiasm for all things interactive that used to eek out of every corner of the Living Surfaces conferences but that’s a story for another time. DUX ‘07 had a nice mixture of creative sensitivity (design) and scientific reason. There were discussions about robots designed to dance with humans, the definition of simplicity, and a ton of thinking done on social networking; fun stuff. Presentations were an interesting mix (about half and half) of representatives of corporate giants and student masters theses. There was a smattering of cool independents, but I couldn’t help cringing when yet another Google or Yahoo! employee got up and started speaking. To further emphasize the vortexes they represent Google even put job postings on the give-away jump drives presented to each attendee. Yikes!
I’d have to say my only complaint about the proceedings was the same one I have at all of the UX / HCI / Ergonomics / etc. conferences; a lack of attention to a few key details. We are experience designers, we care about all of the aspects of interaction and communication and yet repeatedly show a lack of concern for the experience of our conference attendees. For some reason, they decided to pass out printed cards after each speaker’s presentation that were gathered for the purposes of a Q & A session afterwards. This didn’t work out once, questions were poorly worded, lacked relevance, and were often too lengthy to merit responses. The fall-back became, “We’ll post your questions and the answers on the blog.” Why didn’t someone use a live blog to capture questions from cell phones? They could’ve even designed a cool concept to facilitate live conversations the moment the topic was hot in our minds. Real conversations are good things, right?
The other thing that kills me is when the logistics folks provide a really cool looking slide advance gizmo that none of the presenters could use. Yes, I’ve seen this before. The best part is that no one noticed (except for the audience who had to wait for each presenter to regain their momentum after a pooched slide) that there was an issue with the control and made an attempt to correct it. Some presenters in later sessions were even refusing to use the little UFO shaped thing-a-ma-jig.
I realize this is really silly, petty stuff but for me user experience is all about the little stuff. It’s the little stuff that dents brands. Catching the little stuff means you are passionate and engaged and excited about your craft and the industry. This was never a problem at Living Surfaces.
Posted by Joseph Juhnke on November 7, 2007
Recent Comments