1. I’ve done away with my blog header because it too strongly resembled a Wordpress theme. That is a bad thing because it’s too samey, and therefore a little dull. What value did the header add, beyond satisficing a convention?
2. Even without the blog header, you can tell that it’s a blog. It still looks like a blog. It has the side-link bits, the post content bit, the comment bit, and all the other reassuring bits which soothe and confirm that you are looking at a blog.
3. It’s my personal scratchpad, notebook, what-have-you. I’m not bound by anything someone else wants—it’s my party and I’ll cry if I want to!

The base for technology and science, mathematics, can have yes/no answers. Art is not based on yes/no answers. It is not possible to be RIGHT in an English essay. It is not possible to be RIGHT in an art exam. With a mathematics exam it is possible to be 100% right.

John Maeda in his foreword for Processing (see previous post):

Hybrids that can fluidly cross the chasm between technology and the arts are mutations in the academic system. Traditionally, universities create technology students or art students—but never mix the two sides of the equation in the same person. During the 1990s the mutants that managed to defy this norm would either seek me out, or else I would reach out to find them myself…

These ‘mutants’ lie somewhere on the scale between technology and art. I’m naturally in the latter camp, but I want to be closer to the middle. I’ve chosen to design systems and services which make use of technology, so I need to know my platform. Technology needs ambiguity, too: as without creativity and ambiguity, a technology is an unused palette.

Image by Jared Tarbell (Complexification), made with Processing—this is rather brilliant, so look at the others.

I’m playing with Processing.

At the same time, I am making my way through this lovely book by Casey Reas and Ben Fry, which is “a programming handbook for visual designers and artists”. It’s not just a pretty book (the book is very pretty); it’s a compelling philosophical collection of essays and practical tasks for visual designers-who-wanna-be-programmers. The chasm between code and art has never been so narrow.

Processing is definitely an art platform but if you can do maths that helps. People can do some very cool interactive stuff with it. Though it’s also used for making quick interactive prototypes (I want to see what mobile-design extraordinaire Bryan Rieger has been up to with it.)

I don’t expect to accomplish anything particulary grand with it; at least not yet—I’m having fun typing out the code and seeing what I can do, and picking up the syntax.

Oh, and here’s some lines that stick to your cursor.

Pretty cool, eh?

Design has moved from a focus on form and meaning to a focus on action and interaction. Increasingly, designers are faced with the need to design integrated systems. Systems of systems. Connected sets of products and services. These systems form ecologies that grow and evolve. Their outcome cannot be pre-determined. Even the full range of use may be difficult to predict.

Dubberly describes his ideal design curriculum for changing design practice below. Sounds like the ideal 21st-century designer is a creative polymath:

What skills should the new media and digital designer learn to
be literate in this field?

The main thing for designers is to be curious—and to learn how to
learn. My ideal curriculum might look something like this.

Design Theory:
- Design Methods
- Research Methods
- Information Structures and Key Models
- Principles of Interaction
- Philosophy and Ethics of Design

Visual Studies:
- Principles of Visual Perception
- Rapid Visualization Drawing
- Typography (editorial and display)
- Content Management Systems (grid systems)
- Way-finding Systems
- Information Design (visualizing information structures)
- Motion Graphics
- Sound Applied to Motion Graphics
- Film Making

Design Practice:
- Information Spaces
- Tools and Applications
- Games and Collaborative Authoring Environments
- Interactive Spaces
- Controls and Haptic Interfaces (physical interfaces)
- Integrated Systems of Products and Services
- Tools for Making Tools
- Systems that Evolve

History:
- of Art
- of Architecture
- of Graphic Design and Product Design
- of the Design Methods Movement
- of Science and Science Fiction
- of Information, Computing, and Interaction

Computer Science:
- Procedural Programming
- Data Structures
- Object-oriented Programming
- Web and Network Applications
- Building Sensors, Displays, and Actuators
- Modeling with Fractals, Genetic Algorithms,
and Cellular Automata

Communications:
- Writing
- Public Speaking
- Rhetoric
- Semiotics
- Epistemology
- Cybernetics (science of feedback)

Related Disciplines:
- Biology (natural systems)
- Cognitive Psychology (learning systems)
- Sociology (social systems)
- Cultural Anthropology and Ethnography
- Marketing
- Economics
- Organizational Management

Download it here. The rest of the interview is very interesting and I highly recommend reading the whole thing.

Interaction design, user experience design, service design (what?)— the terms seem to be used a little loosely and interchangeably, but it doesn’t matter—I’m no longer going to obsess over the wording*—

These approaches to design, I think, are more entrepreneurial, more exciting, and more potentially meaningful and useful, especially when applied to solving important problems. There are opportunities all over the place (and on a sliding scale of breathtakingness), not just in rural China, but at a local bus stop. Two of the things I’d like to fix are airports and online banking.

—

* Despite the fact that words matter, generally speaking, a bit. I’ve vowed not to write about the terminology problem the industry appears to have, and suggest that you hire only “ninjas” and “rockstars”…

I’m following the #IranElection activity on Twitter, though the posts there are raw, unfiltered, and it’s difficult to tell what is real, and what is not. The colour green (#28C0A6 is the precise hex code) is being used to indicate support for Mousavi.

Fascinating to see the power of the web at work—the BBC is currently receiving five videos per minute!

Visiting California in 2003 changed me: it solidified my decision to become a designer. Moving to Brighton in 2007 changed me by exposing me to a vibrant community of smart people doing exciting things. Visiting China in 2009 increased my awareness of my own country.

One thing that we take for granted is our freedom. It’s almost a cliché, but not quite. I was reminded recently how it isn’t yet a cliché; it’s far from a meaningless word, and it’s not something we should take for granted.

—

So when the British National Party secured two seats in the European Parliament as a result of the polls on June 4th, I felt mixed. There is no question that the British National Party is a deceitful party with unacceptable views. There is no question that it’s extremely depressing that so many British people voted for them. But I was sad at how people were dealing with it—after the results were published, Twitter was full of angry, violent, anti-democracy messages.

If the last few months have taught me anything, it’s how lucky we are as a nation to have an open dialogue with our government and politicians. We have press freedom: we make fun of our politicians. We don’t keep them on a pedestal: we keep ‘em firmly in the sty. And we take it for granted.

June 4th 2009 was also the 20th anniversary of massacre in Beijing—the anniversary of a deeply censored, taboo event which occurred in 1989, when the Chinese government murdered an unknown number of students demonstrating in Tiananmen square. Bystanders were also murdered, and even those in their houses, when stray bullets went through the thin walls.

Aiming ultimately for democracy, what the students wanted—initially—was simply a conversation. Talks failed, the government lost patience, and an estimated thousands died. The extent of the coverup and subsequent brainwashing is shocking; twenty years later, the Chinese government is shutting down websites around the event, to minimise conversation.

The Chinese government is going to extreme and ridiculous measures to keep people quiet, and the reality is that most Chinese people are brainwashed: generations will grow up knowing nothing of the event in 1989. I think it is terribly sad that the Chinese government is trusted and blindly loved by the people it deceives.

There is no doubt that learning about China has enhanced my appreciation of our freedom and democracy, and it’s wonderful that people can vote. We choose and elect; we mock and deride; we ultimately have the power.

This just popped up in my reader: a discussion hosted by Frog Design on design for the other 90% in China. The banner above is from the event; I liked it too much not to share it. That’s Chairman Mao, holding a mobile. It is emitting the light of knowledge, hope for the future, and flowers.

Sarah Lacy describes a cause for the fascination-factor with China succinctly:

What makes China so staggering is that everything that happened to corporate America over decades—think the television and media studios build out of the 1950s, the greed of the 1980s, the dot com bubble, the build out of physical and IT infrastructure, current Web 2.0 and CleanTech innovation—is all happening to China at once.

China is going through incredible rapid development and growth. Shenzhen was particularly interesting to visit because it’s exploding. Coastal City shopping mall is packed with tiny, expensive, homegrown brands. Development is going on everywhere: visibly and physically, with new buildings, business ventures, misguided architecture.

—

I’ve noticed that global US design companies with a China base are clustered in Shanghai: Frog Design is one of them, IDEO is also based in Shanghai, and there are many others, like Razorfish. Why are global US design companies choosing Shanghai to base their Asia office?

Shenzhen has the highest GDP of any Chinese city, but seems to lack the attraction for global design companies as Shanghai. This is possibly because Shenzhen isn’t as established as Shanghai: it’s young, formative, and under heavy development.

Shenzhen doesn’t have anything like Shanghai’s brand image. Shanghai has enough cultural sway to have its own Gothamist spin-off, Shanghaiist. Shanghaii’s skyline is identifiable enough to make it into a logo. What would Shenzhen’s Gothamist logo look like? Exactly: a construction site.

Shanghai has a strong brand image: foreigners perceive the city to be an economic centre. Shanghai is possibly a popular choice as it’s a shopping mecca: the culture may also provide commercial opportunities for design and advertising, and supply enough business to justify an Asian branch.

But I don’t know the answer. Sadly I can’t read Mandarin, I can’t find out much from Chinese websites and articles. But the culture of design, design companies in China generally, would be really interesting to explore.

So, for the meantime, questions…

Is design as we know it in the West a luxury in the East, where owning pyjamas, a bicycle and a TV is considered an excellent standard of living, and only 253 million out of a 1.31 billion population have internet access?

Eye-tracking sounds a bit silly next to something as basic as pyjamas. In fact, pyjamas are so luxurious they’re considered a bit of a status symbol…

What’s unquestionable is that there are some astonishing opportunities in China for designers. Apart from high GDP cities like Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Shanghai, and Beijing, there’s the rest of China.

Frog Design poses some interesting questions (here’s that event link again):

1. What are the key opportunities (health care, education, transport, energy, etc.) for international brands in China beyond the 1st tier?
2. What are the best ways to uncover and design for the unique needs of people living in these areas?
3. What can we learn from local Chinese brands that have been successful in 2nd tier cities?
4. How can companies leverage marketing, distribution, and pricing for business success in these areas?

I wish I could go along to this discussion in Shanghai on the 25th June with Kunal Sinha. In the meantime, I’ll watch from the ringside…

The wonderful and sometimes frustrating thing about the design profession at-large is the diverse plurality of perspectives across a wide range of intellectual traditions (social sciences, fine arts, engineering, business) but that’s what makes the conversations so stimulating and the possibilities for learning and growth so rich.

A great post from Ghost in the Pixel about important questions for designers.

Very impressed with the rich design literacy that the author has.

IDEO is the chief proponent for “design thinking”. Their problem-solving approach is summed up well by this post, “Ten tips for creating a 21st-century classroom experience”. IDEO recommends we study people (anthropology) than relics of the past (archeology) in order to understand design problems:

An archaeologist seeks to understand the past by investigating its relics and digging for the truth of what was. An anthropologist studies people to understand their values, needs, and desires. If you want to design new solutions for the future, you have to understand what people care about and design for that. Don’t dig for the answer—connect.

Another point I liked regards the culture of the classroom (point 6, ‘Teachers are designers’):

Let them create. Build an environment where your teachers are actively engaged in learning by doing. Shift the conversation from prescriptive rules to permissive guidance. Even though the resulting environment may be more complicated to manage, the teachers will produce amazing results.

I wonder how the resulting environment will be more complicated to manage, and if this philosophy would work in large classes, where perhaps prescriptive rules are more effective for managing unruly, chaotic kids. But I think a culture of permissive guidance would be an interesting experiment in practice, though “amazing results” feels like an unqualified optimistic prediction.

And point 3 is highly valid – interpersonal skills are not just ‘core capabilities of a 21st-century global economy facing complex challenges’, but invaluable in life and work:

Talents such as creativity, collaboration, communication, empathy, and adaptability are not just nice to have; they’re the core capabilities of a 21st-century global economy facing complex challenges.