Posts Tagged ‘ux’

Thoughts on Tim Brown’s “Change by Design”

Tuesday, December 7th, 2010

Change by Design - Tim Brown

I wasn’t able to attend tonight’s Sydney UX Book Club where the topic for discussion was “Change by Design” by Tim Brown, however I read the book and wanted to share some of my thoughts and out-takes.

As the book-jacket states, “this is not a book by designers for designers”, instead it presents the concept of design thinking and provides a contextual look at how it can change business, services, and products.

As a brief overview, some of the suggestions from “Change by Design” are that:

  • briefs should evolve by defining initial constraints and goals that are revised as the understanding grows.
  • observing people on the margins or extremes of your audience can provide valuable insights.
  • inspiration, ideation and implementation are overlapping stages during a project.
  • divergent and convergent thinking are required for creating and making choices.
  • evaluating innovation with a “Ways to Grow” matrix demonstrates how a business can grow through incremental, evolutionary and revolutionary innovation.
  • a good place to begin design challenges is by asking “How might we..?”

Here are some of the quotes I found particularly interesting:

Today, rather than enlist designers to make an already developed idea more attractive, the most progressive companies are challenging them to create ideas at the outset of the development process. The former role is tactical; it builds on what exists and usually moves it one step further. The latter is strategic; it pulls “design” out of the studio and unleashes its disruptive, game-changing potential.

 

The natural evolution from design doing to design thinking reflects the growing recognition on the part of today’s business leaders that design has become too important to be left to designers.

 

The willing and even enthusiastic acceptance of competing constraints is the foundation of design thinking.

 

A culture that believes that it is better to ask forgiveness afterward rather than permission before, that rewards people for success but gives them permission to fail, has removed one of the main obstacles to the formation of new ideas.

 

The tools of conventional market research can be useful in pointing toward incremental improvements, but they will never lead to those rule-breaking, game-changing, paradigm-shifting breakthroughs that leave us scratching our heads and wondering why nobody ever thought of them before.

 

Our real goal … is helping people to articulate the latent needs they may not even know they have …

 

… observing “analogous” situations … will often jolt us out of the frame of reference that makes it so difficult to see the larger picture.

 

… a successful prototype is not one that works flawlessly; it is one that teaches us something …

 

Design is about delivering a satisfying experience. Design thinking is about creating a multipolar experience in which everyone has the opportunity to participate in the conversation.

 

Instead of accepting a given constraint, ask whether this is even the right problem to be solving. … A willingness to ask “Why?” … will improve the chances of spending energy on the right problems.

 

Curse deadlines all you want, but remember that time can be our most creative constraint.

Google suggest? It’s more like Google says

Saturday, November 20th, 2010

Today my search on Google for “does finland allow dual citizenship?” left me a little stumped because the first page of results had no mention of Finland, instead giving me links to web pages about English dual citizenship.  I then noticed that Google had decided to over-ride my search’s “finland” with “england” and provided a link to change the search back to my original term.

When using a search engine, seeing links to synonyms, spelling-corrections and related searches can be helpful. Hijacking a valid search is not.

Google hijacking search terms

Intercom entry panel design

Thursday, November 18th, 2010

Part 4 of my intercom system whine.

Tonight I decided to take a closer look at what’s on the other end of my intercom and I’m even more perplexed by the choice of system.

BPT Group intercom system

Outside my building’s front-door is a large stainless-steel vertical panel (in this picture I’ve managed to chop off the top): video camera, a row of lights and icons, a screen, some buttons with dots on them, a number pad, and some other strange black block with a pretty design (a swipe key reader perhaps? we have a separate one of those already).

I pressed in my apartment number and it buzzed my apartment. It works that easily. What are all the other buttons for?

I gave the system a bit of a poke. In the middle of the panel, the four buttons with dots seem to be associated with the options at the bottom of the digital screen (so why are they visually grouped with the number pad?). All four buttons allow you to access menus that list the apartments… by Unit number: Unit 101, Unit 102, Unit 103, etc, in reverse order if you try the Z-A option, or by search. This A-Z and search feature might be useful for an office block to locate businesses but it’s useless for an apartment block where residents don’t want to be listed by name (and thankfully we’re not… for now at least, and I’ll be complaining if that happens).

The little blacked out bit at the top of the digital screen is where the building name appears (which is already shown around the building’s entry). The manufacturer on the other hand, BPT Group, take up almost half of the screen with their logo (pointless).

When I was looking at the panel I’d thought that the time had been incorrectly set. Looking at the photo now I realise that the “0″ in “06:44″ had made me think it had been showing me an AM time even though I was checking it out in the evening. “06:44″ meant 6:44pm. Of course. Why does an intercom need a visible date and time anyway?

I could keep complaining, but I’ll finish with the funniest thing that puzzled me – why is there a button with a guillotine icon on it?

BPT Group intercom system

That was my immediate thought while I looked over the buttons and it took me a good few seconds staring at it to realise it is actually an open door. Poorly presented and again a useless button for our building considering a person wanting to gain entry has to have someone on the inside press a button (oh, sorry, two buttons) to let them in.

The requirements, as I see them, for my building’s entry panel for the intercom system are:

  • the ability to buzz and talk with apartments
  • a video camera to feed to the intercom receivers in the apartments

This system meets those requirements but it has a lot of awkward and pointless bells and whistles (and guillotines) thrown in.