purecaffeine.com

My first visit to the dentist

Nathanael Boehm — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:17:57 +0000

As some of you may know I grew up in a toxic fundamentalist Christian revival cult which I blog about at My Exodus. The church was largely against medical intervention, instead choosing to believe in the healing power of God. Whatever your religious views, the fact is that up until the age of 25 when I left the cult in 2008 I had received very little medical attention. My only real contact with hospitals and doctors was is 2002 when I was airlifted out of Molonglo Gorge after falling off a cliff and cracking my head.

Over the last two years since leaving the cult I’ve started to engage with the medical profession and health care services. I’ve now seen a GP perhaps a dozen times, a psychologist and today … a dentist.

As an experience designer all this exposure to medical services and health care professionals is quite eye-opening because everything about these experiences is new and overwhelming.

I’m not going to say that design researchers need to experience first-hand the situations, contexts and environs they design for but first-person experience does provide a unique insight that may be difficult to perceive through observation and interviews.

Of course my experience won’t be typical. First of all I’m a first-time user of these services and facilities which may not be representative of the majority although it could be valid if your research is focussed on first-timers. Secondly as a designer I’m going in there looking for good and poor experience, looking for opportunities to improve so I’m in a different mindset to “typical” patients and consumers.

Thankfully Jenny set up the appointment with a reputable dentist and although dental work generally is not comfortable it was overall a good experience. I was planning on just getting a check-up but turned out I needed three fillings so I was there for a while. The dentist took the time to take me through the x-rays, explain decay, the procedure for removing and filling the cavities. I probably would have liked a little more of a walk-through during the hour-long procedure as uncertainty can cause anxiety and it’s a little hard to ask questions when your mouth is stuffed with a rubber sheet, extraction tube and dental drill.

The only pre-arranged signal was if I needed suction. Probably could have done with an additional one to signal when they jammed the edge of my upper lip against my teeth with tools as that was a little uncomfortable but otherwise really impressed with the care and attention to patient comfort.

As I said, I don’t believe it’s necessary for researchers to experience these things first hand and is certainly not sufficient evidence to support design activities but my experience today did give me an appreciation for the value of walking in another’s shoes. There won’t always be opportunities for design researchers to experience situations first hand. For example, you can’t really experience dental work or surgery if you don’t need work. It’s not like going through a supermarket checkout, buying a car or getting your income support payments.

I remember reading a particularly inspirational account of a researcher who wanted to experience life as an elderly person. To simulate (as best she could) the experience of the deteriorated physical state of an elderly person one of the things she did was put her hands in ice to reduce the mobility of her fingers much like arthritis and then attempt to perform everyday tasks.

If you can, give it a go. Don’t just write down the words people use to describe their feelings and perceptions but actually experience the doubt, trust, fear, elation, anxiety and confidence yourself. Don’t watch the patient, be the patient.

// purecaffeine.com, UX, design, social media and Gov 2.0 blog by designer Nathanael Boehm, Canberra, Australia. Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 Australia License.

A perspective on innovation

Nathanael Boehm — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 10:04:09 +0000

I like this definition of innovation from Warren Berger’s book Glimmer:

Innovation may be immensely popular as a business buzzword — Michael Bierut declared that among corporate executives “innovation is the new black” — but the reality is that people talk about it far more than they achieve it. Business people may tend to think of some small tweak in their production process, a new button added to a gadget, as an innovation. But as the designer Greg Van Alstyne notes, an innovation, by definition, should produce significant change in the marketplace and/or in people’s lives.

Co-design is not the evolution of design

Nathanael Boehm — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 22:20:48 +0000

I’m a big supporter of co-design as a design approach. Organisations who invite end users and customers into the design process as active participants are demonstrating a humble admission that they don’t know everything and need the subject matter expertise of the people they’re designing for.

However I’m a little concerned that co-design is starting to become a bit of a buzzword. It’s being treated like the Next Big Thing in design, that all design processes should go the way of collaboration and distributed participatory design.

Co-design is just one technique. Implemented poorly, co-design is nothing more than the focus groups and market research from decades ago. Implemented well, it can result in a fantastic outcome. One of the biggest benefits of co-design for me is the positive perception the process creates from customers towards the organisation. People liked to be consulted and acknowledged as the subject matter experts. Creating that goodwill will certainly aid the deployment of new products and services through your new network of champions and ambassadors of co-design participants.

However co-design isn’t everything. It’s not the ultimate design process and does have flaws. Trying to wrangle external participants can take up a lot of time and may fail to uncover the latent needs of people that other techniques such as goal-directed design or deep dive ethnography might.

Of course it doesn’t have to be one or the other. Perhaps you start off with passive research, then internal brainstorming to come up with the spark of an idea and then elaborate on that idea through co-design which is then finished off with formal usability testing.

For me, co-design is one of those tricky things like persona development. If it’s not managed properly it’ll compromise and undermine the entire project.

You gotta keep ‘em separated

Nathanael Boehm — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 11:44:45 +0000

This morning I picked up on a conversation on Twitter between Dave Malouf, Dan Saffer, Markus Weber and Russ Wilson about whether designers need to have technical knowledge about the code and technology they design for. I jumped in and argued that “knowing code limits creativity”, referring to my comment on Tim Brown’s blog post forming versus coding which was specifically about design and synthetic biology but applies to the discussion:

[regarding] component vs system design and the requirement for coding skills … my thoughts are designers should understand the capabilities of the technology but not get down in the nitty gritty of binary programming or DNA coding. Whilst such knowledge can facilitate and expedite interactions with the developers or in this case biologists designers should keep at a distance in order to not confine themselves to a box of “things we know we can do”.

As I touched on in a recent blog post on system thinking applied to design specification something will be lost when there is too much focus on individual components. Designers will add more value at the collective, the system, the interplay of components – and leave the challenges of implementation to the developers and biologists.

Not that the pointy end of implementation requires any less creativity than designers – in fact coders can apply as much design and creativity trying to bridge the requirement-capabilities/constraints chasm as the ideation/visualisation “designer” designers.

Whilst accepting that coming from a software development background that’s shaped my career I am trying to distance myself from coding. I accept that knowing PHP, ASP, HTML, JavaScript and CSS has helped me design feasible, efficient interfaces that I can then describe to developers in programmer-speak … or in the case of web front-end development actually implement as even with my rapidly dwindling skills currency I can still code standards compliant best practice web application interfaces better than most devs I’ve had to work with.

As I further raised in the discussion on Twitter:

You don’t think knowing what IS done doesn’t limit what COULD be done? You don’t think or design in terms of jQuery widgets?

What I was saying is that working with LEGO or Meccano or plastic toy soldiers puts you in the mindset and mental box of working with those pieces and typical configurations. Designers need to throw out the recipe book and let developers come to the table with the feasibility assessments.

Dan Saffer early on in the to-and-fro linked to this article on ignore the code Designers are not Programmers by Lukas Mathis who says:

I believe that being able to program can be a negative attribute for people who are responsible for designing the user experience. Designers who know how things are implemented or, even worse, who have to implement their own designs are in danger of impeding the quality of their designs.

In response to Markus Weber’s question to me “How would a UX designer perceive the statement that programmers should be able to design?” I replied:

If programmers CAN really design, good on them. I’ve done the one-man-show gig before. However it’s VERY hard to switch between the coalface dev mindset and the big picture design mindset.

… followed by a response to Russ Wilson:

Programming is about technology and binary, design is about humans and behaviour. Very different headspaces to occupy.

Dave is of the opinion that it’s ok for designers to know to be able to code – in fact he believes it can help them ensure the product is then implemented correctly according to specification. While in my experience that’s certainly true I believe that whilst designers might know how to code if it’s not their job they should step back and allow developers to step up. I’ve seen what happens when programmers are pushed into the “Just convert this pile of spec into code”. It’s not pretty. As designers we have a responsibility to innovate and facilitate in all areas of project execution – and it’s what developers are always asking for. In fact it’s what people in nearly every occupation I come across asks for “Involve us earlier!” … but I digress.

Read more in Dave’s wrap-up post of this morning’s discussion Why designers do need to know code …

Humanitarian design is fine if done right

Nathanael Boehm — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 12:38:03 +0000

In response to Bruce Nussbaum v Emily Pilloton in the debate Is Humanitarian Design a New Kind of Imperialism? they both make good points although I do agree Nussbaum needs to do his research.

I love design and I love travelling so it would be great to combine both and do design work overseas for entirely selfish reasons — but I do accept Nussbaum’s criticism that the motives and intent behind people delivering design services in other cultures can influence the effectiveness of their design work.

However by following a rigorous evidence-based design methodology with an aim to implement a solution that is desirable, feasible and viable in the local context then I believe designers can contribute in a meaningful and positive way in any situation regardless of their attitude and reasons for being there.

To extend Nussbaum’s argument sighted designers shouldn’t be designing for blind or vision impaired people; non-cognitively impaired designers shouldn’t be designing for cognitively impaired people.

I think it’s absurd to expect designers to stay within the confines of their own cultural silo because apparently they are unable to empathetically and sensitively embed themselves in another culture in order to apply their design expertise.

Designers are facilitators. There’s no place for cowboy designers, lone wolves who storm in, make a mess of things and leave again. Like a catalyst, we guide others who truly understand the situation to develop the solution without us actually being part of it. It would upset me for someone to point to something I’d been involved with as a designer and label it as mine — it’s a group effort. If someone attribute a design exclusively to me then I’ve done something terribly wrong.

Even though Nussbaum’s blog post did get my blood pressure up a bit I do concede he’s got a point &mash; about bad designers. I don’t believe such criticism can be levelled at good designers who make the effort to design and implement sustainable solutions that are relevant to the local context and that are adopted. Hell, I have to deal with the same problems of user adoption and uptake with web applications here — it’s no different. I’ve seen business software deployed with no user consultation or support and be outright rejected even though the developers believed people could be forced to change. I think the “imperialism” angle is overplayed. It really is just about good v poor or unethical design.

As far as the debate goes I think Emily Pilloton spent too much time defending the reputation and good work of Project H Design rather than clarifying Nussbaum’s argument although she did have this to say:

I cringed, but nodded along, agreeing with his assessment that too often humanitarian design is a scattershot “fly-by-night” occurrence in which Designers (with a capital D) swoop in with their capes and “design thinking” to save the poor folks.

Mental Notes – Psychology in design

Nathanael Boehm — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 09:15:44 +0000

Since being taunted by a small preview pack of these cards earlier this year I’ve been looking forward to receiving the full 50-card deck which I pre-ordered back in November.

Since purchasing Michael Michalko’s Thinkpak creative thinking card pack a few months ago I’ve really taken to card decks as a great way to apply random ideas and approaches to a problem or idea rather than follow a linear process.

Recently I undertook to try and catalogue all the knowledge in my book collection with a “knowledge index” – essentially methods, techniques, frameworks etc to help prompt me to consider everything I know in every aspect of my work. Of course it’s simply impossible to run through the entire checklist at every point due to the sheer amount of knowledge against time pressures and working environment constraints so card decks like Mental Notes are a great way to ensure you consider at least some of the insights that psychology has to contribute to design and in an accessible way rather than flipping through a heavy psych or human factors text which can counter-productively affect intense creative design and brainstorming sessions.

Most professional designers won’t find much new in this card deck but these cards are certainly a great prompt to jog your memory and help you access the full body of knowledge in your head and put it to practical use in your everyday work.

Get Mental Notes now

Book review: Change by Design

Nathanael Boehm — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 08:52:25 +0000

In Change by Design, Tim Brown shares the stories of his organisation in working with clients to develop innovative products and solutions to problems.

This is not a book on technique and methodology – it is essentially a collection of case studies from IDEO and other design agencies and organisations punctuated with Tim’s opinions and predictions for the future. His vision is that design thinkers (people who employ the approach, mindset and techniques of design) will rise from all aspects of business, organisations and citizenry and play a part in tackling the big issues of today – although he maintains that there will still be a place for professional designers as facilitators who will co-design solutions with consumers, users and citizens.

In summarising Part One of his book, Tim says:

“In each of the preceding chapters I have tried to identify techniques that originated in the design community – field observations, prototyping, visual storytelling – that lie at the center of a human-centered design process. In the course of these studies I have made two arguments: First, that it is time for these skills to migrate outwards into all parts of organisations and upward into the highest level of leadership. Design thinking can be practised by everybody. There is no reason why everyone, up to and including [CEO] cannot master these thought processes as well”

Change by Design is a light but still interesting read. I read over a dozen books concurrently so whilst I insist on reading every book cover to cover some will fall to the bottom of the pile if they lose my interest. I kept picking this book up until I finished it and whilst I didn’t learn any new design techniques I certainly felt inspired by it by a better understanding of how design is positively changing the world to be a better place.

Designers need negative space

Nathanael Boehm — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 22:44:37 +0000

I ranted the other night about the failed time:productivity ratio and how employers fail to identify and recognise the value that creative employees bring to the organisation beyond a very basic time=productivity=value equation that doesn’t at all apply to designers.

I used “designers” in the very broad sense. Not visual or graphic designers (who can sometimes be no more than process workers who churn out template-based brands), not user experience designers but anyone who applies creative design thinking to their work. That can go for policy writers, strategists, software developers … and even the mail sorter I used as an example in my blog post can be a designer if they take the initiative to improve processes.

Designers need negative space around them in order to design effectively. The traditional “Produce 50 widgets per day” doesn’t quite translate to “Produce 50 innovative ideas per day”. But that’s the model employers continue to try and cram designers in to.

Nat Torkington mentioned a few of the ways some companies are starting to recognise the need for employee “own time” in his blog post Clue is a renewable resource.

But ultimately the responsibility lies with the designer — you — to design your working environment. When I say “negative space” I’m not referring really to physical space but mental space.

There’ll be a default expectation on you to churn out deliverables like a mail sorter and be at your desk from 9-5 like a security guard. You have to alter that expectation, educate your colleagues and management that that’s not how creative processes work. Take charge of how you operate and approach design problems.

Minimise distractions and interruptions by keeping your email client closed until the afternoon each day; make sure you tell your boss that’s what you’re doing otherwise they’ll be tapping on your shoulder mid-morning asking if you’ve read their email yet. Don’t invite people to phone you; redirect your phone to voicemail if you can during your daily allocated thinking time.

Feel free to step outside the box or rather cubicle farm. What’s the worst that can happen if you decide to work out of a meeting room, down at the cafe or even off-site for a couple of hours a day? It’s in everyone’s best interest – just make sure you explain that to your boss.

Don’t feel pressured to work through your lunch break. Remember, inspiration and brilliant ideas can develop in milliseconds … but you can waste entire days banging your head against a problem. Step back, give yourself some room. Take your lunch breaks, get some fresh air, read a book. Don’t give in to peer pressure just because everyone else around you thinks it’s necessary to give 150% in time. As a designer you can give 150% too but not neccessarily through effort and investment of time.

I can honestly and humbly say that I’ve come up with ideas in the shower in the morning that I believe are equivalent in value to months of work. It’s not because I’m smart but because that’s simply what designers offer organisations and their clients. Ideas, not time.

And above all, don’t get roped into Business-as-Usual (BAU) process work. Be clear about what your role is and make sure you don’t get sidetracked.

Now, my next challenge is to convince my employer that I can contribute as effectively as I am now but only working 15 hours a week – without a reduction in salary. Wish me luck!

purecaffeine.com featured design blog

Nathanael Boehm — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 11:19:17 +0000

I know it was posted a few months ago but it was just brought to my attention today by Oz-IA Sydney that my blog was featured in Webmaster Showcase’s article 9 Australian design blogs that deserve your attention!

Thanks for the recognition!

Building a design library

Nathanael Boehm — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 02:40:29 +0000

I’m putting together a shopping list of design thinking books and resources (such as method card decks) for my organisation to populate a project design/thinking room I’m helping fit out and I’m looking for your recommendations. Design thinking, service design, Government 2.0, communications, strategy etc.

I put out a poll a week ago and received the following suggestions:

Thoughtless Acts – Jane Fulton
Sketching User Experiences – Bill Buxton
Change by Design – Tim Brown
Design Thinking – DMI
Designing Interactions – Bill Moggridge
Everyday Engineering – Andrew Burroughs
Glimmer – Warren Berger
Basics Design: Design Thinking – Gavin Ambrose
The Designful Company – Marty Neumeier
Wired to Care – Dev Patnaik
ThinkPak – Michael Michalko
Thinkertoys – Michael Michalko
Open Government – O’Reilly
Groundswell – Charlene Li & Joshua Bernoff
We-think – Charles Leadbeater
The Living Company – Arie P. De Geus
In the Bubble – John Thackara
The Journey to the Interface – Sophia Parker
Age of Conversation 3 – Drew McLellan
The New Rules of Marketing and PR – David Meerman Scott

Do you have any other recommendations?

I’m consolidating all new suggestions that come in into this list.