Adaptive Path recently hosted a brown bag lunch with Jeremy Yuille regarding interaction design education. I skirted up from my Nokia office a few blocks away to take advantage of AP’s open invitation. It took me a while to realize that Jeremy is on the IxDA board, and that I had met him at the IxDA conference last February during a discussion about future IxDA conferences.

Jeremy is also Program Manager at ACID, Digital Media Coordinator at Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology Communication Design, Interaction Designer at overt.creation, according to LinkedIn. And he is working on a PhD in design, which was the impetus for coming to AP to talk about interaction design. To paraphrase, he wanted to talk to industry stakeholders before making claims about interaction design as an academic.

For an hour, the group—six folks from AP, Dani Malik, who heads the San Francisco IxDA chapter, and me—shared our backgrounds and experience as designers. An overarching theme of the discussion was why formal design education is or is not important for interaction design. With the speed of which interaction design has gained relevance over the past few decades, and with many interaction designers having not been formally trained, the question deserves exploration.

Most of the participants had some form of design or art background—three of us had gone to Carnegie Mellon University. We talked about the value of crits, learning to both give and taken constructive criticism, working in teams with people from various backgrounds, and gaining an understanding that design is not a yes/no question. Other points included the importance of typography and composition, attention to detail, being able to explore, tinker, and play.

We also briefly touched on the boundaries of interaction design through a discussion on what we tell other people when asked what we do. I went off on my usual tirade of not wanting to call myself an interaction designer due to the associations many people have with interaction design and the web or software or even all things digital (interaction design can have nothing to do with digital). Jared Cole, a fellow CMU alum who also participated, stated his insistence on simply being called a designer. I too now simply tell people I’m a designer at Nokia, rather than imply any specialization.

Undoubtedly, web design, or UI design, are specializations within interaction design. But the boundaries are either much broader or endless, and we have only begun to push at them. This is something I learned through design education, a perspective that industry has yet to fully gain.

Overall, I enjoyed the discussion. Given that we ran over time and seemed to have a lot more to say, it seemed the other participants found the conversation engaging and worthwhile as well. It was good to begin having the discussion outside the walls of academia, and I look forward to Jeremy’s thoughts on the matter.

As our efforts to consider how current design firms might transition to new areas for design, our team talked about designing design teams as a possible strategy to advance the influence and understanding of design. The idea is that as a design consulting firm, we would create design teams within organizations that could sustain themselves and then create other design teams within the organization if or as needed.

But obviously, it would be difficult for a current design firm to make this transition. We discussed initially inviting people to work with us during a design engagement, to be part of a design team for a real project to gain design experience and learn methods and tools. These people would then go back to their organizations with their new appreciation of design as advocates for design and for our firm. With word-of-mouth marketing, we would seek to shift the business from taking individuals into our firm to embedding ourselves into client organizations while we help build internal design teams. This is similar to what IDEO did for SAP a few years ago when they created the Design Services Team.

Just a few days ago, Henning Fischer of Adaptive Path interviewed Peter Coughlan, Partner and Transformation Practice Lead at IDEO. The following snippet of conversation addresses a potential problem are nascent plan would face.

Fischer: The challenge we are most often faced with happens when the engagement ends and the client team struggles. How do we avoid situations like that?

Coughlan: Well, the obvious answer to that is to anticipate the client team struggles, and design the program in anticipation of that. We started down this path by offering clients some “telephone consulting” or follow-up visits to hold their feet to the fire — that’s evolved into a more formal process in which we help them prototype the infrastructure they’ll need to implement while we’re still actively engaged. We’re also exploring new models including “externships” (where an IDEO person goes to live with a client to keep things moving along), as well IDEO alumni who can embed themselves in our client organizations after we’ve completed our programs.

I view this as design mentoring. Naturally, client teams or even new design teams, as my team is considering, will not have the expertise and experience of design firms whose mission is to be leaders in the field. But as Coughlan points out in the interview, solutions are more likely to be implemented if developed by the client and not the design firm. The role of the design firm thus becomes to show clients the way rather than to do the work.

Coughlan: I would say that the most important shift in the design profession will be for designers to get comfortable with the notion that it’s more important for a client to have a great idea than for the designer to have the idea. If the client organization has played a role in coming up with the idea, it’s way more likely to see the light of day.

Designing design teams could be an extension to this shift.

If you follow this blog regularly, you will have noticed that I have not been regularly updating as of late. Time has been very limited, and the brain power needed for blogging has been diverted to other tasks, like thesis, thesis, teaching, coursework, and, of course, finding a job.There are six more weeks left of my grad school life. Hard to believe.Here’s a quick synopsis of what I’ve been up to instead of blogging…

Thesis Paper

During spring break, I completed an entirely new draft of my thesis paper. The previous version had too many structural issues. So I threw it out and didn’t look back, not using one word of the 8,000+ I had written. The end result was much better. I just got feedback from my advisor, Jodi Forlizzi, who says, “It’s almost there!”

Thesis Project

My thesis project, now called MetaMe, a mobile application that helps college freshmen project, explore, and understand their identity, is starting to take shape after months of formlessness. This week I’m creating scenarios and wireframes that I will then share with some fellow grad students to get some feedback. After some refinement, I plan to validate with freshmen next week.

Teaching

My Basic Interaction class is going well. My students just completed their first big project, a communication device/service for various user groups. They chose to prototype their solutions on the iPhone, though some also made web interfaces and physical prototypes. The next project is to design an ebook reader with a focus on gestural interaction.

Job Hunting

Talking to potential employers has kept me quite busy, especially over the last week. I’m looking at both New York and San Francisco, but I’m also in talks with a firm in Sydney, Australia. I just got back from San Francisco for interviews with Adaptive Path and Nectarine, and next week I’m headed to New York to talk to Moment. After that, I’m back in silicon valley to meet with SAP. Frog Design also expressed interest, and I’m trying to set something up with their New York office. Also, I’m talking to 2nd Road in Sydney. As you can see, there are some very different companies in different locations. I’m keeping an open mind to ensure I make the best decision. Overall, I’m thrilled with the opportunities and interest I have received. But I can’t wait to have it all figured out.

I’d like to continue a comment about bringing emotion into the design process because I think it deserves its own post. Kip said:

Design has some valuable roots in its ties with emotion, but in many ways we’ve lost touch. Can we bring a sophisticated discussion of “emotion” back on the table and include it in our design process?

I don’t know if we’ve lost touch or if emotion has been neglected in the bustle of quickly changing technology and products. But I think we can do more to bring emotion into the process. There might be an expectation that design is by default about emotion, and it does not need much attention.

Looking at my Basic Interaction design syllabus, emphasis is placed on the design process and methods. Although some of the methods, like personas and narrative scenarios are supposed to help get at the motivations and the experience, and by extension, the emotions. Video sketching is another method that I think helps to understand what the emotional aspects of the product might be like. Though we typically talk about video sketching as being about the experience, which leads me to ponder the relationship of emotion and experience in design (thesis paper topic for some grad student?).

I remember a recent comment about “shit in, shit out” in regards to the design process, which I took to mean you get what you bring into it. If you aren’t excited about the design process or problem, for example, your solution will not be very exciting. Perhaps if you are not emotional or consider emotion throughout the process, emotion will not be a strong component of your solution.

Last semester, when Kip and I were working on our TSA service design project, we spent a lot of time considering the emotional aspect of going through airport security. Taking lots of photos of people in context and having those photos surround us during design meetings really helped keep emotion at the forefront of our discussions. Though it also helped that we are both very aware of and keen to recognize the role of emotion in design.

Another suggestion I heard last summer at Adaptive Path came from Dan Saffer, who suggested considering the aesthetics sooner using an image, music, or word. This is similar to my experience with the TSA project, where we referred to certain photos to constantly remind us of the emotions involved currently and those we wanted the end result to embody.

Happy new year +3!

What follows is my experience in 2007 as a graduate student and the opportunities it afforded me, as well as what I will be doing in 2008. Finally, I mention the blizzard that is about to hit Mammoth Lakes, California, where I currently am.

Design School and 2007

Two thousand and seven was a great year for me. I have no regrets about taking two years out of my work life to indulge in the grad school experience. People say that you don’t need to go to grad school and that you can get the same experience in the working world. While that may depend on the program, in my case, I wholeheartedly disagree.

The interaction design program at the CMU School of Design has changed the way I think about what my purpose is in the world and how I think about life. I’ve had a chance to learn under some great people—Shelley Evenson, Richard Buchanan, Dan Boyarski, John Zimmerman, Jodi Forlizzi, Ben Fry, Golan Levin, and Kristin Hughes. And I have had the pleasure of being in the company of my peers, a range of interesting folks from various backgrounds with perspectives I truly appreciate. I learn a tremendous amount from them. My coursework has also provided me with real-world experience working for clients like Motorola and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

This past fall semester I taught Design Computing (digital prototyping with Flash) to a mix of graduate and undergraduate design students. It was my first time teaching, and was both challenging and rewarding.

I also had the opportunity to direct the school’s second annual Emergence conference, which was a great honor and privilege, though a lot of freaking work. But becoming acquainted with folks from Adaptive Path, Apple, Cooper, Core77, Electronic Ink, Engine, GM, Google, IBM, IDEO, live|work, Method, and Swisscom Mobile, eased the pain a bit.

Most of the companies listed above also recruit from the school. This past summer I worked at Adaptive Path in San Francisco, which I would not have had access to without going through the IxD program. There I worked on the Charmr project, a diabetes management device with a focus on the diabetic experience. It was very rewarding and a lot of fun.

Finally, my grad school experience has also truly turned me into a designer. So to answer any question as to whether grad school is worth the $70,000 I will owe upon graduation, for me, the answer is yes.

2008

Enough about last year. The year ahead will bring a slew of new adventures. For one, I will be graduating in May. After that, I will likely move away from Pittsburgh, where I have been living since 2003, to wherever it is that I find work. To prepare for this, during the winter break, I have been building a new portfolio and redesigning this site, which I hope complete before the semester begins on January 14.

This semester I am taking courses with Richard Buchanan, Kristin Hughes, and Shelley Evenson. In addition, I am teaching Basic Interaction Design to design, computer science, and HCI undergraduates. Given my enthusiasm for interaction design and the design process, I am very exciting about this.

In February I am heading to Savannah for Interaction08 to the first ever interaction design conference. I would also like to attend SXSW Interactive, but it may not be in the budget.

Speaking of conferences, I am also currently working on a Work-in-Process submission for CHI 2008 in Florence, Italy, due January 8. My paper is on my thesis project work regarding opportunities for interaction design to support identity change. Submission to CHI is a requirement of my thesis advisor.

Mammoth Blizzard

I am writing this post from Mammoth Lakes, California, where my brother, Matt, and his wife live. I have been here (Flickr photos) since December 20. It has been quite relaxing and a good break from my near constant design thinking. That said, I started off 2008 on somewhat of a design note when I met up with Dan Saffer (Designing for Interaction author, Adaptive Path Experience Design Director, and Interaction08 co-chair, MDes IxD CMU) who just happened to be in Mammoth at the same time as me. Dan will be guest lecturing at CMU on January 16 in Jodi Forlizzi’s Seminar 2 class for the first-year interaction design grads. Good beer and good conversation with Dan in an unlikely meeting place provided a fitting start to the new year.

Dan left Mammoth the next day, due to the upcoming storm. Conversely, I extended my stay.

The National Weather Service has issued a Blizzard Warning for Mammoth Lakes warning of significant snow accumulations and strong winds that have the potential to create dangerous winter driving conditions Friday through Sunday. Four day snowfall totals of 5 – 8 feet are possible through Sunday in the Sierra.

To leave Mammoth, I need to fly out of Reno, Nevada, which is already a harrowing experience given the winds the whip over the surrounding mountains. The impending storm will only increase those winds. So I changed my flight from this Friday to Tuesday, January 8, so I could both avoid potential delays or cancellations and also see such a massive amount of snow. Friday’s prediction is three inches per hour.

The fear of storm produced the longest grocery store lines that I have ever seen, stretching from check-out all the way down the aisles to the back of the store. The shelves were being emptied. Got to love people. (We were only there for a few ingredients needed for last night’s meal.)

So day three of 2008 finds me well, looking forward to the storm, the semester, and whatever lies beyond. I hope it finds you well, too.

Here are all the presentations I went to at UX Week, along with a single takeaway to make it an easy read. If there is no takeaway, I was probably checking email or working on Emergence.

Day 1

ClearRx: From Masters Thesis to Medicine Cabinet (Keynote)
with Deborah Adler, Milton Glaser
Design makes a difference.

Stone Soup: Stories and Storytelling for Collaboration
with Kevin Brooks, Motorola Labs.
Listening without interrupting is difficult.

The Problem Solving Power of Stickies: Simple Tools that Deliver Great Results
with Kate Rutter, Adaptive Path
Stickies are simple, but powerful. Use them often.

Parallels in Cooking and Design
with Ryan Freitas, Adaptive Path
Consistency is key, but provide room for creativity.

How to Manage a User Experience Team (Without Losing Your Mind)
with Katrina Alcorn, Hot

Capturing the Whole User Experience
with Indi Young, AP Emeritus
Doesn’t matter how you draw it, as long as you understand it.

Communicating Ideas Throughout an Organization
with Andrew Crow, Adaptive Path
Everyone has emotions, motivations, and goals.

Discussion Panel: Skills for Current and Future User Experience Practitioners
with Sarah B. Nelson, Adaptive Path
Design schools like CMU and IIT produce future user experience practitioners.

Day 2

The Conversation Gets Interesting: Creating the Adaptive Interface
with Stephen P. Anderson, Sabre
Multiple ways to present the interface based on the audience.

Adaptive Path Charmr Presentation
with Jesse James Garrett, Adaptive Path
Focusing on user experience is what we bring to the table.

Documentation: Choosing the Right Tool for the Job
with Dan Brown, EightShapes
Elements of a document: define, elaborate, enhance. Making Comics by Scott MuCloud.

Waterfall Bad, Washing Machine Good
with Leisa Reicheit, disambiguity.com
Good design process combines iteration, a multidisciplinary approach, collaboration, early and rapid release, and involves end users.

Pattern-Based Design Communication Techniques
with Doug LeMoine, Cooper
Typical Cooper stuff.

Discussion Panel: Beyond Wireframes
with Dan Brown, Eightshapes
User-centered design is very design focused, weak on multidisciplinary and collaboration.

Day 3

Keynote
with Jan Chipchase, Nokia
Context is the richest environment. A product or service is not necessarily about functionality, but a projection of self—what does an object or service say about a person?

Inclusive Iterations: How a Design Team Builds Shared Insights
with Emily Ulrich, Steelcase

Making Research Effective
with Todd Wilkens
Good research deliverables: clear and straightforward, engage the audience, tell stories.

Stores, Web and Beyond: Serving Multi-channel Customers With Meaningful User Experiences
with Kathleen Hoski, BestBuy.
Day in the life may not capture the full picture: the experience over time.

Mobile Research Techniques
with Rachel Hinman
How we understand the Internet today is tied to the PC experience; we need to change our perspective; sometimes the obvious answer isn’t obvious; pay attention to workarounds.

CNN.com Relaunch Case Study
with Lori Adams and Dermot Waters, CNN
Use wiki for requirements.

Day 4

New Sources of Inspiration for Interaction Design (Keynote)
with Dan Saffer, Adaptive Path
People that tell you an element of design always needs to be in a particular place are either insane. Look for inspiration from architecture, film, mechanical objects.

Learning Interaction Design From Everyday Objects
with Bill DeRouchey, Ziba
Inspiration fuels design. Attention fuels craft. Interaction has a language that we create and curate.

The National Building Museum: From the Inside Out
with Martin Moeller, National Building Museum
Concrete made beautiful.

My Adaptive Path colleague, Alexa, has a great post on our vision for the Charmr project.

Our primary hope is that device companies will see the enthusiasm that a vision created from this perspective can generate and might embrace a more human-centered approach in their work. And we hope to inspire others to answer Amy’s call to take action now.

Charmr: Bringing a new perspective to an old problem by Alexa on the AP blog.

Alexa will be attending Emergence.

Interaction Designer, Adaptive Path, Summer 2007

Charmr was an internal R&D project at Adaptive Path inspired by an Open Letter to Steve Jobs by a prominent diabetes blogger, Amy Tenderich. The goal was to generate enthusiasm for human-centered thinking and inspire broader change throughout the medical device and design industry.

In eight weeks, we went from user research with diabetics to final concept of what the experience could be. My role included conducting interviews, background research, research synthesis, concept generation, and communication of the envisioned experience.

[wp_youtube]VQe1tssyGkU[/wp_youtube]

More information can be found on Adaptive Path’s website.

Friday was the last day of my 10 weeks at Adaptive Path. We had the normal 4 pm tea time, but with more people and more activities. The Wii, which I had heard we had, finally made an appearance. The screen was projected on the conference room wall to make for some great fun.

Overall, I had a great time this summer in San Francisco with Adaptive Path. I was surprised—but delighted—to find out they are much more research focused than I imagined, and that they’re not as much of a web company as I thought. Though, they still have a strong foothold in all things web, they’re looking beyond.

While I’m no longer at the office, I still need to complete my essay. Because I was stretched between multiple projects, I didn’t have dedicated time till my last two days. I wrote 1,200 words on Friday, but it’s still a draft and may be too academic in its present form. So I will be working to complete that in the next two weeks.

Also, in two weeks is UX Week, which I will be attending. One of the projects I’ve been working on will be presented at the conference. I will be presenting that along with the rest of the team. I will also help facilitate a couple workshops, including one with Liz Sanders.

At Friday’s party I talked to a recent hire, Leah Buley, about being on the inside of Adaptive Path. We mused that the AP environment and company could not be replicated, or that it would be difficult to do so, because so much of what makes AP what it is are the people that work there.

It’s the people that I will miss.

And perhaps they’ll miss me, too.

One of the great things about being at Adaptive Path is that I have access to the cello-playing man who wrote Designing for Interaction, Dan Saffer. Today I sat down with him to talk about the direction my essay is going, as it’s somewhat of a commentary on the perception of interaction design in current practice.

It was the first time he and I really talked much about our ideas of interaction design (we’ve talked about other things, just not interaction design as a practice so directly). And it was great to pick his brain to find out whether I am either way off or making assumptions about some of the thoughts and gut feelings I have that are influencing my essay.

He was mostly supportive. And not that I don’t value my judgment, but it was nice to validate my thoughts with someone of his stature in the interaction design world.

As for the essay, it’s about the need for interaction design to distance itself from the web. This is something that I have been thinking about throughout the summer having encountered in a practicing world that seems to still largely view interaction design as being tied to the domain of web design. Not that all practice thinks of itself this way. But I think it will be good for Adaptive Path’s audience.

I’ve got a good outline of what I want to say, which I ran by Dan. Now I just need to crank it out. That’s what the last day of the internship is for.