tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-64711687153806322672024-03-13T20:57:57.783+05:30coffee again......saumitri's random thoughts on design, product innovation and business over a coffee breaksaumitrihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05767731603755535710noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6471168715380632267.post-49154720299886065382010-05-31T12:23:00.000+05:302010-05-31T12:23:32.175+05:30Bridging the Intangible - Tangible gapOften when asked what one does as a designer, the answer seems to be that designers understand user requirements and convert it into design. I have myself replied the same all these years. The counter argument I get is that many other disciplines do the same, so why the need for a designer. Thinking about this led me to a more indepth thought about what designers do (or are supposed to do). <br />
<br />
I think the main task of a designer is to understand human emotions, feelings and thought (all intangibles) and convert them into a design output (tangible). This is what the designer is uniquely trained to do. <br />
<br />
Many other disciplines are trained to understand data, organize and interpret into information, and then construct a solution. However, the uniqueness of the designer lies in going beyond mere information, understand the human intangibles behind that and then construct a tangible design that caters to those intangibles. <br />
<br />
A design that engages the user, arouses curiosity, increases ease, and many a times provides a novel experience is what the designer's goal should be. That, I feel, is the purpose of the designer.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img src="http://static.delicious.com/img/delicious.small.gif" height="10" width="10" alt="Delicious" />
<a href="http://delicious.com/save" onclick="window.open('http://delicious.com/save?v=5&noui&jump=close&url='+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+'&title='+encodeURIComponent(document.title), 'delicious','toolbar=no,width=550,height=550'); return false;"> Bookmark on Delicious</a></div>saumitrihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05767731603755535710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6471168715380632267.post-9106461865028359562009-03-16T15:16:00.003+05:302009-03-16T15:26:44.542+05:30You want your product to succeed? Tell the user what it is, clearly.<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tallchris/14288097/" title="confuse by Tall Chris, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/10/14288097_3c89859983.jpg" width="384" height="500" alt="confuse" /></a><br /><br />Successful products have many notable attributes. One, however, is most significant - the ability to clearly say to the user what it is.<br /><br />A productivity tool needs to be recognizable as one. A social networking site has to say that it is so. A forum has to look like a forum. <br /><br />Ambiguity is the first step towards failure. A product that doesn't speak for itself and say what it is, will confuse users about its purpose and end up being neglected.<br /><br />Most product owners seem to want too much and yet play safe. Mostly unclear as to what they really want to provide to their users, and under pressure to face up to competition and not be left behind, they end up creating multiple objectives without a central focus. The result is a salad of ideas, each with independent objectives, none of which add to the objective of the whole. <br /><br />Focusing on a central idea and saying what it is, seems risky - it seems easier to bet on a bag of ideas and hope that some of them will work out rather than having to put your money on one. Ambiguity seems to be a guise for lack of confidence. The end result is a mediocre product and the probable path to eventual failure.<br /><br />It must be realized by all product owners, that product development is a risky business. Here taking risk is the only way to be safe, and playing safe the riskiest and the surest path to failure.<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">(Photo Credit: Tall Chris, Flickr)</span><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img src="http://static.delicious.com/img/delicious.small.gif" height="10" width="10" alt="Delicious" />
<a href="http://delicious.com/save" onclick="window.open('http://delicious.com/save?v=5&noui&jump=close&url='+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+'&title='+encodeURIComponent(document.title), 'delicious','toolbar=no,width=550,height=550'); return false;"> Bookmark on Delicious</a></div>saumitrihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05767731603755535710noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6471168715380632267.post-55198390472952888952009-03-13T00:22:00.006+05:302009-03-13T00:56:11.538+05:30Successful Products have Life - an Energy Theory<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/pleasantpointinn/2606346353/" title="Robin's first hello by pleasantpointinn, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3050/2606346353_929fc741bb.jpg" width="500" height="375" alt="Robin's first hello" /></a><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Do successful products have "life" ? </span><br /><br />I know this might sound crazy but let's explore the possibilities.<br /><br />Life can be defined by an "energy" that enables an object to have the unique capacity to act on its surroundings, react to it, connect to-and-between other objects around it and facilitate and enable that environment, besides of course the ability to grow and reproduce. Some attribute this life-energy to a higher spirit, others to a God, many others to ambivalence and still others to nothing. <br /><br />Successful products do all of the above, either in a positive or a negative sense.<br /><br />Starting with the guys who germinate the product idea, to the ones who incubate it, to its eventual audience/users and its environment - all of them contribute to this "life" in the product. It is all these people and the environment who bring into it this energy. <br /><br />Bringing this energy into a product is not easy. Each contributor needs to channelize a lot of their own energy into the product before it can spring into life. That is why only a handful of products succeed.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"> Why Products Fail?</span><br /><br />Too many people get into building a product without this energy, concentrating on putting the superficial building blocks (features) together, without focusing on the energy within. The result is similar to an anatomical construction of the human body without life in it. Inevitably, an energy-less construction and then a post-construction effort to blow life into the product doesn't do much to bring it to life.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">The Success Formula (Duh !!)</span><br /><br />Investors will tell you that they don't just evaluate a product, they evaluate the people behind it, before they invest in it. And, they do so very rightly. Right from ideation to construction, release and beyond, the people behind and then around the product conjure together their cumulative energies to bring it to life. You need the idea generators and germinators to bring in their vision and passion, the constructors to work out the details, the magical "conductor-like" product manager to orchestrate this incubation and bring it to release. Finally, you need the audience/users to bless the new-born into acknowledgment, existence and growth. Once grown, the mature product will use the energy of its environment to spawn and encourage other ideas and products to grow from it and reproduce beyond.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Does this theory that successful products have life, matter?</span><br /><br />This construct brings out the importance of the vision, passion and persistent energy required to bring a product to life and make it successful. <br /><br />Life, as always, is a metaphor. It can also be the truth.<br /><br />Look around and you will see successful products around that live successfully. The tech industry is abound with examples like Google, Amazon, eBay and now Twitter which have sprung to life and are successful.<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">(Photo Credit: pleasantpointinn, Flickr)</span><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img src="http://static.delicious.com/img/delicious.small.gif" height="10" width="10" alt="Delicious" />
<a href="http://delicious.com/save" onclick="window.open('http://delicious.com/save?v=5&noui&jump=close&url='+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+'&title='+encodeURIComponent(document.title), 'delicious','toolbar=no,width=550,height=550'); return false;"> Bookmark on Delicious</a></div>saumitrihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05767731603755535710noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6471168715380632267.post-9643187598597507672009-03-10T15:21:00.005+05:302009-03-10T15:54:05.269+05:30Crowdsourcing with CAUTION !!<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/qilin/185210348/" title="A Crowd at the Market by Augapfel, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/46/185210348_51b5727e25.jpg" width="500" height="375" alt="A Crowd at the Market" /></a><br /><br />A lot is being said about "crowdsourcing" almost everyday, and more and more entrepreneurs are jumping onto the crowdsourcing bandwagon. There is however, need for caution. <br /><br />Just as the banking and financial services industry in the US jumped on the sub-prime lending bandwagon leading to the crisis we face in the world economy today, any "fad" needs to be taken up with caution. This moment of economic crisis should teach us not to evaluate options based on short-term gain, but do a careful evaluation of its long-term implications before taking it up.<br /><br />I have been evaluating crowdsourcing with respect to the design of software products, which is my area of work, and I would welcome suggestions and more thoughts on this.<br /><br />Design broadly consists of four major phases:<br /><br />1. An initial understanding phase, where a designer employs various tools at her disposal to understand the needs of users of the product and society in general, <br /><br />2. A second divergent ideation phase, where ideas are generated, <br /><br />3. A third convergent phase where the final solution is chosen, and<br /><br />4. A final implementation phase. <br /><br />One can package this in many different ways, but the essential activities in design will typically conform to these four phases.<br /><br />It is the second phase of ideation, that typically holds the potential of being crowdsourced. If you are creating a product or service and need ideas, it does make sense to crowdsource. The ideation phase is afterall a divergent phase and you need to explore. You can hire a consultant and pay money to do this exploration or use the crowd for free to do the same - either way you will need to explore ideas. There is just one small glitch - you will end up getting a lot of ideas that are grounded in different contexts and not in the context your business might be oriented towards. This will happen, because the crowd will typically not have done the first phase of understanding your users. You will therefore need to sieve through the ideas and take those that fit your context, when you move to the next converging phase of arriving at a solution.<br /><br />Therefore, in the third phase of converging towards a solution, you will need expert advice. A deluge of ideas from the crowd can be overwhelming, if you don't know how to sieve through them and you might end up losing your way, and even going away on a tangent that is detrimental to your business model. Therefore, for the third phase of arriving at a solution, you will need an expert designer to bring all the ideas together and connect the dots, using tools and experience at her disposal. Crowdsourcing will provide you with "opinion", but you will need "informed opinion" to make decisions. <br /><br />Similarly, in the first phase of understanding user needs and studying it in the context of society and the business, you will need an expert who can use the necessary tools at his disposal to capture these needs with the right amount of empathy and understanding, both of which take years to imbibe.<br /><br />Again, in the final implementation phase, you will need an expert to plan and implement this design - it is a fine balancing act of all the constraints at hand, and comes only with training and experience.<br /><br />Crowdsourcing enthusiasts, whom I have read so far, seem to be so gung-ho about cost savings in the short-term, that they seem to have ignored all these aspects in their espousal, and this can be dangerous. Traditionally, not having done enough home-work upfront has meant doing multiples of that work down the line - cost savings upfront is a myth that results in more expensive rework later with much pain and hardship as well.<br /><br />As I see more and more entrepreneurs and enterprises jumping onto the crowdsourcing bandwagon to get design done, I am concerned. I worry that this mad rush will leave most entrepreneurs with burnt fingers and products with lost opportunities that can affect society adversely in the long run. Creating and supporting the creation of good products is not an obligation, but it is necessary for the well-being of each and every one of us. We don't need an economic recession to tell us, that we were wrong - we just need to be positively careful about the choices we make.<br /><br />Since the fundamentals of product design, apply to all other forms of design - organizational and social - I am of the opinion that the application of crowdsourcing needs to be done with a lot of thought. <br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;"><br />(Photo Credit: Christopher Augapfel, Flickr)</span><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img src="http://static.delicious.com/img/delicious.small.gif" height="10" width="10" alt="Delicious" />
<a href="http://delicious.com/save" onclick="window.open('http://delicious.com/save?v=5&noui&jump=close&url='+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+'&title='+encodeURIComponent(document.title), 'delicious','toolbar=no,width=550,height=550'); return false;"> Bookmark on Delicious</a></div>saumitrihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05767731603755535710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6471168715380632267.post-24931905725826884872009-03-02T15:49:00.003+05:302009-03-02T17:16:19.453+05:30Why design?I was thinking about the scenario we are in, especially with the economic recession, and how designers need to work in this scenario.<br /><br />On the one hand, the recession has meant more focus and prioritization, and the same has obviously reflected in the designs we do, and yet, designers still have the responsibility of seeing that this "focus" is not so short-sighted that we put the longer term at stake, both for our clients as well as to the users of our products.<br /><br />While lurking on the internet, looking for advice on this thought, I chanced upon this interesting talk from Philippe Starck, which provides interesting insights:<br /><br /><object width="446" height="326"><param name="movie" value="http://video.ted.com/assets/player/swf/EmbedPlayer.swf"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="bgColor" value="#ffffff"></param> <param name="flashvars" value="vu=http://video.ted.com/talks/embed/PhilippeStarck_2007-embed_high.flv&su=http://images.ted.com/images/ted/tedindex/embed-posters/PhilipeStarck-2007.embed_thumbnail.jpg&vw=432&vh=240&ap=0&ti=197" /><embed src="http://video.ted.com/assets/player/swf/EmbedPlayer.swf" pluginspace="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" bgColor="#ffffff" width="446" height="326" allowFullScreen="true" flashvars="vu=http://video.ted.com/talks/embed/PhilippeStarck_2007-embed_high.flv&su=http://images.ted.com/images/ted/tedindex/embed-posters/PhilipeStarck-2007.embed_thumbnail.jpg&vw=432&vh=240&ap=0&ti=197"></embed></object><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img src="http://static.delicious.com/img/delicious.small.gif" height="10" width="10" alt="Delicious" />
<a href="http://delicious.com/save" onclick="window.open('http://delicious.com/save?v=5&noui&jump=close&url='+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+'&title='+encodeURIComponent(document.title), 'delicious','toolbar=no,width=550,height=550'); return false;"> Bookmark on Delicious</a></div>saumitrihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05767731603755535710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6471168715380632267.post-10172020221218895672009-01-23T17:58:00.004+05:302009-01-23T18:58:55.348+05:30The "more is less" paradox in Product DesignLast Wednesday, as part of our "Design Discussions" session, my team and I watched the "Paradox of Choice" lecture by Barry Schwartz. We had watched Barry's talk before but we loved listening to the talk again.<br /><br />While the whole talk is relevant, one area that is particularly relevant to Product Design of Software is "Capability vs. Usability". Barry opines that customers buy a product on its "potential" or "capability" and its only later, during usage, that they become aware of its "Usability". He goes on to make many more important points that include the point that customers know that the usability of the product is not the same as its capability, and yet many products are bought on their mere capability. Now this is very significant if we extend and evaluate the way we design and sell software products. I know that Product Managers face the dilemma of whether to build features at the risk of feature-overloading or spend effort in keeping the product simple and useful, while road-mapping for their product and I think the "Paradox of Choice" should provide them the starting point to apply to Software Product Development. <br /><br />A simple way to think about it in the context of Product Development of software both for the enterprise and the individual consumer is as follows (these are just my initial thoughts and I am still trying to wrap my head around it - i am hoping comments from readers will provide more insights):<br /><br />1. The Feature-Rush Approach : Product Management and Product Marketing almost always rush to build more and more features to stay ahead of competition. Now, this may seem bad, given the fact that this mad rush can hamper quality and usability of the product. However, the fact that most customers will judge and make a "purchase decision" on mere capability (the list of features), makes this "feature-rush" approach attractive. For many large enterprises, software purchase decision is made by the procurement organization or the CIO/CTOs who don't use the software themselves, but buy it for the organization. Such people are more likely to evaluate the software on its capability rather than usability. This is one of the reasons for success of Microsoft software in the enterprise space. Even large and credible brands are not immune to the "Capability-Buy" phenomenon. Enterprise 2.0 vendors, while trying to make the product usable, will still need to be feature-capable in comparison to existing products, if they want to make any impact on the enterprise space.<br /><br />2. The Use-and-Buy Approach: If you are really concerned about building a kick-ass product, that users love to use or betters their life, you will need to let users use it before they buy it. This is the approach most Social Media and Direct-to-Consumer products take. The best example is Google's Search. To be able to really be successful in this approach, you will need the conviction and the staying power of an innovator and the ability to keep persisting, before users see the benefit of your product and move in. Initially, the field will be spread across multiple such vendors, but if you really have the "killer app" with the best user experience, you can be sure that users will stick by you.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img src="http://static.delicious.com/img/delicious.small.gif" height="10" width="10" alt="Delicious" />
<a href="http://delicious.com/save" onclick="window.open('http://delicious.com/save?v=5&noui&jump=close&url='+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+'&title='+encodeURIComponent(document.title), 'delicious','toolbar=no,width=550,height=550'); return false;"> Bookmark on Delicious</a></div>saumitrihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05767731603755535710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6471168715380632267.post-83220207232716861792009-01-16T14:13:00.004+05:302009-01-16T14:50:12.610+05:30Will Google buy Twitter?There is already a lot of buzz around the question if Google is planning to buy Twitter. Some people are already predicting that this is certainly true.<br /><br />My friend Stowe, says in his <a href="http://www.stoweboyd.com/message/2009/01/google-shake-up.html">post</a>,<br /><blockquote>This suggests to me that Google is *very* interested in acquiring Twitter, and I bet discussions are happening already.</blockquote> <br /><br />I know that this was on the offing, but it would be disastrous if Google buys Twitter. Twitter has the potential to create a new revolution in publishing and content assimilation, an idea that Google has no clue about. <br /><br />Google's strength lies in its ability to create products that present information easily and with great relevance, be it text or images. Google is great at figuring out what people expect to see from the content present on the web. However, it has no idea of how people communicate with each other and how that content can be created.<br /><br />Twitter hit upon something different, or maybe the users of Twitter have made it seem different (and I hope Evan Williams and team understand this) - Twitter has provided a new content generation mechanism to people, along with the ability to tag them and therefore index them in a way that people associate them. Ofcourse, this does mean that searching and finding that information (which is Google's expertise) does become easy and more relevant, but that is not the "big" idea. The big idea is on the other side - on using the Twitter model to generate content, which has till now been too tedious and cumbersome both to generate and to tag and associate in an easy way. <br /><br />I suspect that if Google buys Twitter, it will be able to use the relatively small idea of the Twitter model of content access, which is of importance to Google. Google will also achieve its more important objective of capturing the Twitter user base, usage pattern and so on. But it will be a lost opportunity for the "big" idea of the Twitter model of content generation. <br /><br />If the Twitter team have a vision of the future, they should stick on with Twitter by themselves, just as Google has done. In a few years they will be able to buy Google.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img src="http://static.delicious.com/img/delicious.small.gif" height="10" width="10" alt="Delicious" />
<a href="http://delicious.com/save" onclick="window.open('http://delicious.com/save?v=5&noui&jump=close&url='+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+'&title='+encodeURIComponent(document.title), 'delicious','toolbar=no,width=550,height=550'); return false;"> Bookmark on Delicious</a></div>saumitrihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05767731603755535710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6471168715380632267.post-19305162411457790872009-01-07T17:05:00.003+05:302009-01-07T17:36:24.959+05:30The Social Media CircusI follow a lot of people via their blog feeds and on Twitter. What amuses me is that all these guys seem to speak to each other and pat on each others back, creating some kind of a self-appreciation affinity group, and nothing more. I don't know if they make much sense to the rest of the world. It's kind of a circus where each clown is trying to outdo the other. <br /><br />Some of these "bloggers" write 10 to 15 posts a day ( I don't know when they get time to think, eat, sleep or spend time at home, even if blogging itself is their paid job) and most of their posts tend to be either links to other posts or a small comment made on "quoted" text from someone else's blog. I mostly avoid these and go to the source blog at once. It's as if people are trying to cram as many words as possible in their blogs in some kind of a rat race for writing the most words on the web.<br /><br />As for myself, I enjoy the circus, but have to sift through a lot of crap to actually end up getting any new information.<br /><br />One blog feed I really love because of its sensible and good quality posts is the <a href="http://radar.oreilly.com">O'Reilly Radar</a> <br /><br />I like Twitter, but again, the crap bothers me. While some guys do post a few important piece of information or news, most of the others simply announce to the world everything from what they are having for breakfast to how they snore at night, as if the world is interested in that crap. <br /><br />Again, the purpose on Twitter for these ego-maniacs seem to be just about gathering as many followers as possible and its not surprising that many of these guys end up following each other and forming the same self-appreciating affinity groups. They also end up self-announcing themselves as social media gurus.<br /><br />I think in course of time, most serious bloggers and those on emerging stuff like twitter will have to rethink if this self-gratifying circus adds any meaning to their life or to the society at large. With the start of 2009, I recommend the following for such people:<br /><br />1. See if you really enjoy reading what you write on your blog or whatever you tweet. This will give you a fair idea if people want to read them. Don't cram in words just to increase your web presence.<br /><br />2. Get a life. One good post can make your day as well as the day for your audience. You don't need to write in 15 non-informative posts.<br /><br />3. Assume that tweets are like cars on a "streaming" roadway. Keeping your insignificant tweets out of this road will help keeping this information roadway less crowded and valuable.<br /><br />4. We have too many gurus anyway. It might be fun to not become another one. The self-appreciation might just be hollow.<br /><br />5. The web is a serious medium and no one knows it better than those who use it. Let it remain less polluted.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img src="http://static.delicious.com/img/delicious.small.gif" height="10" width="10" alt="Delicious" />
<a href="http://delicious.com/save" onclick="window.open('http://delicious.com/save?v=5&noui&jump=close&url='+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+'&title='+encodeURIComponent(document.title), 'delicious','toolbar=no,width=550,height=550'); return false;"> Bookmark on Delicious</a></div>saumitrihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05767731603755535710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6471168715380632267.post-64812250423743699012008-12-23T19:32:00.002+05:302008-12-24T14:39:22.869+05:30Of Indian Languages and the InternetNikhil Pahwa in a <a href="http://www.medianama.com/2008/12/223-igf-let-us-not-assume-that-users-want-indian-languages-pc-era-ended-multilingual-standards-voice-based-internet/">post on Medianama</a> tells us:<br /><blockquote><br />At the Internet Governance Forum being held in Hyderabad, Ajit Balakrishnan, CEO of Rediff.com said that there is no evidence from the last ten years of the Internet business that users want Indian languages. Rediff has email in 11 languages, and 99% of the users prefer to use email in English. One of the issues is that “practically all of the 300 million young people who aspire to something in this country aspire to learn English.” Therefore “Let us not assume that users want Indian languages.” He mentioned that Nokia has experimented with Indic language keyboards, and pointed out Eterno’s transliteration app which allows the usage of latin characters for messaging in Indic languages.</blockquote><br /><br />There has been interesting posts/comments on this by various bloggers, one in particular by BG Mahesh (<a href="http://www.mahesh.com/2008/12/07/how-to-determine-if-indian-languages-are-wanted-on-the-internet">Mahesh's post</a>)<br /><br />Obviously, Ajit Balakrishnan has missed the point. Mahesh does make some interesting comments but I find his ideas unconvincing.<br /><br />I think all of the posts and blogs I have read on this have not thought about the following:<br /><br />1. <span style="font-weight:bold;">Language is not important, Communication is</span><br />This might sound distasteful to language purists, but this is just the basics. Language does become important as an identity projector and for its political ramifications, but beyond that, for day-to-day life, its just a means of communication. In their daily life, people will use whatever language allows them to connect to the largest mass of people, or whatever is easy and available. As of now, its neither easy to read (rendering) or write (script complications in use of "matras") in comparison to English (which uses only letters for both consonants and vowels). One might argue that the Japanese script is complicated as well, but that argument falls short simply because India is more comfortable with English because of reasons I have outlined in point 2 below.<br /><br /><br />2. <span style="font-weight:bold;">Its not just the Internet when it comes to Indian languages</span><br />The internet is just a reflection of the society we are. Indian languages are not in their prime in urban India (at least). The average child in North India no more says "ma" and "bapu" while addressing her/his mother and father - surprisingly uses "mummy" and "papa", for the two words that represent a child's closest relationships. Higher education is mostly in English. We don't have too many books for advanced studies written credibly in any Indian language like the Germans or the Japanese have. <br /><br /><br />3. <span style="font-weight:bold;">People might be looking for different content and packaging when it comes to Indian languages</span><br />Till now effort has been made to provide Indian language alternatives to the applications that exist in English, as if people will adopt it because of some dying need. Most of these people who have created or pushed for these alternatives, may themselves have had no real need for the same, and have just contrived it to suit their intellectual pursuit or some archaic belief that other people across the often imagined "digital divide" need it - a condescending attitude if not ignorance. A little looking around (and I know I am still guessing it) might show that the solution lies elsewhere. Because of usage, vernacular languages might have their own content and packaging space in media, one that does have overlaps with English media, but also has its own niche - and the same is true for the internet. Some ideas to consider:<br /><br />1. Blogs: A Tamil or a Bengali might blog about work-stuff in English, but would he blog poems in the same? Poems are about feelings and its not easy to blog in a language other than your mother tongue - after all it will end up being just a transliteration, mush like the way most Indians speak English - thinking in their mother tongue and then transliterating it into English. I am sure content like poems or lyrics or even native jokes would be blogged in an Indian language.<br /><br />2. Social Networking: It would be so un-cool to network on Facebook in an Indian Language, simply because Indian languages have not grown fast enough to accommodate and now create college-slangs and fashionable yet simple words - the languages have stagnated and gone out of fashion. However, it might be very very cool to use Hinglish, which is a spoken combination of Hindi and English and has been made fashionable by the aspirational urban youth. <br /><br />3. Mails: It would be a pain to write long mails in Hindi, for example, where getting the "matras" right would be so much difficult. On the other hand, if written in English, people can figure out words even if one makes a "tpyo".<br /><br />4. Twitter: Now that is something one might want to write in an Indian language like Hindi, or Hinglish, or Telegu or Bengali for that matter. Micro-messaging wouldn't be so much of a pain, even if one had to use "matras" in Hindi, as was the case in mails. On the other hand it might be interesting to explore and tweet in different Indian languages and rediscover them. <br /><br />The possibilities could be endless. But its important to keep it cool, simple and easy.<br /><br />The internet is not an intellectual event. Its a mass phenomenon. You have to design for the masses.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img src="http://static.delicious.com/img/delicious.small.gif" height="10" width="10" alt="Delicious" />
<a href="http://delicious.com/save" onclick="window.open('http://delicious.com/save?v=5&noui&jump=close&url='+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+'&title='+encodeURIComponent(document.title), 'delicious','toolbar=no,width=550,height=550'); return false;"> Bookmark on Delicious</a></div>saumitrihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05767731603755535710noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6471168715380632267.post-26325364097554874672008-12-16T20:59:00.003+05:302008-12-17T23:30:06.905+05:30Products are not just a collection of FeaturesSoftware products are not just created but also thought out and conceptualized as a collection of features. While this works for extending features on an existing large product, for the conceptualization of a new product, this is possibly the best way to lose your way. <br /><br />The value of the whole is not always a sum total of its parts. <br /><br />Let me use a familiar analogy. A house, for example, is not just a collection of rooms, or of its accessories. Each room by itself doesn't have the "value" to its occupants as the whole house has. This is because, beyond the collection of rooms, the house is also built around the social interaction of its occupants. The same collection of rooms, organized in 2 different ways based on 2 different social interactions, will provide a wholly different kind of "value" to their occupants. Similar is the case in software products.<br /><br />I am a big advocate of the need to think and conceptualize a software product in terms of its social interactions. After all its the social interactions in a product that users of the product experience, and the features are only a means to achieve them. Many of the current range of Web 2.0 applications are actually based on a single social interaction. Many products, in fact, started from a single social interaction, but have since found expression in a wider range of social interactions as well.<br /><br />Twitter for example, is a simple application that started off with a simple social interaction - "implicit asynchronous messaging" - you could "publish" your status to the stream and let people downstream know about it, without having to explicitly message people. This might have seemed initially to most people (including myself) as not such great stuff, but a little thought will tell you that this is akin to "micro-publishing". The possibilities of extending this social interaction to evolve into a whole genre of social interactions, as people "get it" is endless. Thinking of Twitter as only a feature couldn't have opened up these possibilities, as thinking of Twitter as a publishing-consuming social interaction does. <br /><br />Of the current crop of Web 2.0 products, those that will survive and grow into the next big thing, will have successfully mapped the next generation of social interactions. <br /><br />Each such social interaction may involve a single or a multiple set of features. Again, each such interaction may involve some of the features partially. So, those coming from the old world of product management might want to create a matrix/map that co-relates social interactions to features and this might be helpful for them in product development. However, the progress in product development still needs to be measured in terms of how much of the conceptualized social interaction has been achieved and what possibilities lie ahead.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img src="http://static.delicious.com/img/delicious.small.gif" height="10" width="10" alt="Delicious" />
<a href="http://delicious.com/save" onclick="window.open('http://delicious.com/save?v=5&noui&jump=close&url='+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+'&title='+encodeURIComponent(document.title), 'delicious','toolbar=no,width=550,height=550'); return false;"> Bookmark on Delicious</a></div>saumitrihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05767731603755535710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6471168715380632267.post-16052610223134614132008-05-01T10:46:00.004+05:302008-05-01T12:32:48.325+05:30Designing products for the Entrepreneur...As part of a series of lectures, yesterday I got one of the start-up CEOs my design team works with, Anand Raj, to come and talk to us about an entrepreneur's needs for design. What he said was insightful in more ways than one:<br /><br />Insight 1: <span style="font-weight:bold;">Getting the "Connect" right</span><br />Anand's main insight was that, unless the designer is able to "connect" with the entrepreneur, they may not be able to move ahead with the actual design activity. This connect, Anand feels can be established by one-on-one conversation, or showcasing work that help visualize the entrepreneur's thoughts or the ability to guide the entrepreneur in moving ahead with design. There could be other ways as well. However, the "connect" itself is a soft-skill and comes probably with a keen curiosity, active listening and the ability to contribute at an instant in the context of a discussion.<br /><br />Insight 2: <span style="font-weight:bold;">Fighting the "Ego"</span><br />Most often, the designer and the entrepreneur have their own egos and a conflict can arise naturally. How these people fight their own egos out, determine if they can work as a team. It is important for the entrepreneur to understand and appreciate that the designer is the subject-matter expert and therefore opinions of the designer are of utmost importance. On the other hand, the designer needs to understand that s/he is the "facilitator" of a design, and not the "creator". The designer's task is to guide the entrepreneur and facilitate the design process. <br /><br />Insight 3: <span style="font-weight:bold;">Building "Trust"</span><br />If the "connect" happens and the "egos" are kept out, and the designer and entrepreneur are able to guide, challenge and take each other's ideas forward, "trust" will follow.<br /><br />Insight 4: <span style="font-weight:bold;">The influence of personality, power distance and hierarchy</span><br />Anand gives an example of how he was meeting with a famous CEO without knowing who he was and the candid conversation he had, while his response changed when he came to know who that person was. The designer and the entrepreneur need to both understand these dynamics and ensure that the team works well irrespective of such influences. <br /><br />Anand went on to use these insights to elaborate how without the understanding of these insights and the ability to connect and build trust, the relationship might become difficult. Without mutual trust, even though the designer might work very hard on the design and come up with a great design, the entrepreneur might not be able to appreciate the work done. Soon the team dynamics may get into an ego-brawl leading to conflict of interests. <br /><br />Design is a difficult activity. The acceptance criteria for a design cannot be made objective completely. In such a scenario, it is important to understand that doing design for an entrepreneur is not just about going away to a corner and attempting to get it done - it is as much about thought leadership, the conversations and guidance, the progress and the ability to work with the entrepreneur as a team.<br /><br />Unlike designing products for today, and therefore knowing what society's needs are in the current context, the entrepreneur is most probably trying to create products for tomorrow and therefore project his ideas based on a vision for the future. This is a challenging task and the designer will need to bring to the table thought leadership, expertise and tools and enable that future vision.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img src="http://static.delicious.com/img/delicious.small.gif" height="10" width="10" alt="Delicious" />
<a href="http://delicious.com/save" onclick="window.open('http://delicious.com/save?v=5&noui&jump=close&url='+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+'&title='+encodeURIComponent(document.title), 'delicious','toolbar=no,width=550,height=550'); return false;"> Bookmark on Delicious</a></div>saumitrihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05767731603755535710noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6471168715380632267.post-18991350859035494852008-04-03T06:21:00.002+05:302008-04-03T08:49:34.157+05:30Back again with Workstreamr...This is the repost from my tumblr log:<br /><br />Its been a long time since my last post… I had been busy working on a few products that will probably change tomorrow.<br /><br />One such product is <a href="http://workstreamr.com/blog/">Workstreamr</a>. It’s something we had started to work on with the founders of Workstreamr - Stowe, Ben and Sam. Personally, Stowe has been a philosopher and guide to me and I have learnt a lot from him. Ben and Sam are my friends and I greatly admire their enthusiasm, drive and ambition. These three guys came to us at GlobalLogic with this fantastic idea called Workstreamr and I could immediately see how it could change the way project collaboration was done. I had been a user of several project collaboration tools, including Basecamp, and had been frustrated with some of its limitations. I could see immense value in something like Workstreamr.<br /><br />Workstreamr is one of those products that logically takes the concepts of Web 2.0 away from mere “social networking” to help people do much more - work, collaborate and be productive. Even if you are a freelancer or a small business enterprise, Workstreamr hopes to help you collaborate in a way you want to do without putting too much work overheads for you to handle at each step. Though large enterprises will benefit from this product immensely, but its really the small businesses and freelancers that will prosper from using Workstreamr.<br /><br />I am excited. To collaborate I will no longer need to set up complex workflows and track them. Workstreamr is more human - it allows stuff to ”flow” to me in a “stream”, which I can respond to when I want to in my time-space. The concepts of streaming and flow have been around in the design community for sometime - but to see it beautifully crafted into a product like Workstreamr is a joy. You will have to get an <a href="http://workstreamr.com/">invite</a> for Workstreamr and see for yourself how it works.<br /><br />Working on this product has been fulfilling for me as a designer and in the way we collaborated across geographies and across design and development competencies as an integrated team, one of the important value propositions of Globallogic’s <a href="http://www.globallogic.com/indus_diff/ver_overview.shtml">Version 1.0</a> offering. I think the first big step we took was to clearly visualize the product as a team, prototype it, start development in “small but sure” iterations and build ahead from there. I think the team is a great one - the pace and quality that has been set is amazing.<br /><br />Watch out for more on the Workstreamr experience in the future. Until then get an <a href="http://workstreamr.com/">invite</a>, try it out and keep your feedback coming.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img src="http://static.delicious.com/img/delicious.small.gif" height="10" width="10" alt="Delicious" />
<a href="http://delicious.com/save" onclick="window.open('http://delicious.com/save?v=5&noui&jump=close&url='+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+'&title='+encodeURIComponent(document.title), 'delicious','toolbar=no,width=550,height=550'); return false;"> Bookmark on Delicious</a></div>saumitrihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05767731603755535710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6471168715380632267.post-58536201359756996982008-04-03T06:14:00.001+05:302008-04-03T08:20:09.814+05:30My move to "tumblr" didn't work out...I had moved to 'tumblr', but had to revert back to 'blogger.com' because tumblr is designed to be a scrapbook and a group-log, and a good old blog is what i was looking for.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img src="http://static.delicious.com/img/delicious.small.gif" height="10" width="10" alt="Delicious" />
<a href="http://delicious.com/save" onclick="window.open('http://delicious.com/save?v=5&noui&jump=close&url='+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+'&title='+encodeURIComponent(document.title), 'delicious','toolbar=no,width=550,height=550'); return false;"> Bookmark on Delicious</a></div>saumitrihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05767731603755535710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6471168715380632267.post-85416842613383492912007-08-18T14:41:00.002+05:302008-04-04T01:29:51.848+05:30How "Search" will change...Algorithmic improvements of "blind" search (the search via a blank search box) can only take you so far, and Google continues to do a good job of that. This is "pull" search and relies entirely on the users' ability to recall and construct a search query. However, as human beings we don't really search simply by recall - our search for any information or thing is based on correlation and semantics.<br /><br />Therefore, next generation search will be "push" based, using tags (or other mechanisms) to correlate pieces of information and pushing relevant "groupings" upfront for the user to savor. This will automate and reduce the trouble of "maintaining" folders/groups and yet help users see and use relevant correlations and possibly manipulate and add/delete from. In an ideal situation any new information added would seamlessly flow like a trickle of water into all its relevant channels.<br /><br />Will blind search vanish? No. As in our natural surroundings, blind search will continue to exist, but it will not be the primary means of looking for things.<br /><br />Our primary means of looking for things will be defined by improvements application providers make of using our usage patterns to provide us with what is most relevant to us.<br /><br />Infact, in a few years, Google's (and others') search engine front end will possibly be dead. It will not longer be a home page, as it is today for some. At the most it will be an insignificant "widget" sitting somewhere on your new home page, which in all probability will be your most visited "social network" site. And this new home page will be so "intelligent" and semantically sophisticated, that the mere mention of a search box at the center of a page with nothing else on it (Google search home page) will appear as obviously pre-historic as a DOS command interface looks to us today.<br /><br />By the way, you don't need to believe me today. Just wait until tomorrow.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img src="http://static.delicious.com/img/delicious.small.gif" height="10" width="10" alt="Delicious" />
<a href="http://delicious.com/save" onclick="window.open('http://delicious.com/save?v=5&noui&jump=close&url='+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+'&title='+encodeURIComponent(document.title), 'delicious','toolbar=no,width=550,height=550'); return false;"> Bookmark on Delicious</a></div>saumitrihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05767731603755535710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6471168715380632267.post-61963709989076919012007-08-02T10:57:00.000+05:302007-08-02T12:03:15.231+05:30Behavioral pattern mapping is inevitableSo Google IS wary of behavioral targeting...<br /><br /><a href="http://infotech.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2247562.cms">http://infotech.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2247562.cms</a><br /><br />Either Google is really worried and thinking OR this is a PR activity. Either ways, its good that they and hopefully all the others are looking at that in the right context and that is commendable for a leader.<br /><br />But, i do think its inevitable to do behavioral pattern mapping. If Google doesn't do it, someone else will. Therefore its important that industry leaders like Google think about the future and start defining "how it should be done" rather than being wary and not doing it.<br /><br />We need to put together a system where application providers like Google own the patterns that they come up with and can use it to design applications, but don't own people's personal data. People themselves own their personal data and the data is protected by an independent vendor who gets a commission for this service. Finally, service providers pay people for the data when they use it. This way there will be a separation of interests as far as ownership is concerned, and hopefully prevent misuse.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img src="http://static.delicious.com/img/delicious.small.gif" height="10" width="10" alt="Delicious" />
<a href="http://delicious.com/save" onclick="window.open('http://delicious.com/save?v=5&noui&jump=close&url='+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+'&title='+encodeURIComponent(document.title), 'delicious','toolbar=no,width=550,height=550'); return false;"> Bookmark on Delicious</a></div>saumitrihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05767731603755535710noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6471168715380632267.post-69736137441059145532007-07-29T00:36:00.000+05:302007-07-29T01:09:55.688+05:30Will someone in Yahoo please wake up...Its good to be back after a few weeks.<br /><br />Jerry Yang needs to do more than fill in for the Terry Semel. He needs to start opening his design team's eyes to its user population, especially in large markets like India.<br /><br />I have been part of a very well known HCI forum in India and have seen the forum face one particular problem in Yahoogroups for the last one and a half years (or maybe more). The problem is thus:<br /><br />Forum members post job ads in the forum for usability/HCI specialists. While replying, many members don't notice the default "Reply to: the group" option and end up sending their CVs to the group, embarrassing themselves and amusing their bosses and colleagues, all of whom are generally part of the group.<br /><br />Then starts a bout of either yahoo bashing or blaming the members who reply thus or asking the moderator to change the settings. But nothing else happens. Members still make the mistake, as they obviously will but more importantly Yahoo never wakes up to the problem.<br /><br />Doesn't Yahoo India know about this? If not, why don't their designers lurk on India's most famous HCI forum? Or is it because Yahoo India's designers don't have much say within Yahoo? Or is Yahoo sleeping over the problems of its huge user base in India?<br /><br />The solution to the problem isn't all that difficult. Several options can be tried out and here are some off-the-cuff ideas:<br />1. Right now the "Reply to" area and dropdown are not prominent and get lost amongst the other stuff around. It could be made prominent visually with help of graphics, color, etc.<br />2. A dropdown might be an obstruction itself in seeing the other options and therefore an inappropriate choice of widget. Other options can be explored based on number of options possible.<br />3. Rather than having a dropdown and then a "Send" button, there could be both "Reply to sender" and "Reply to group" buttons explicitly located.<br /><br />I am sure a few iterations of options tested with users will help arrive at a better solution than the obvious nuisance we have today.<br /><br />Jerry, you'd better wake up and take notice or else forget competing with Google.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img src="http://static.delicious.com/img/delicious.small.gif" height="10" width="10" alt="Delicious" />
<a href="http://delicious.com/save" onclick="window.open('http://delicious.com/save?v=5&noui&jump=close&url='+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+'&title='+encodeURIComponent(document.title), 'delicious','toolbar=no,width=550,height=550'); return false;"> Bookmark on Delicious</a></div>saumitrihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05767731603755535710noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6471168715380632267.post-25336789632353402032007-06-30T16:25:00.000+05:302007-07-02T09:36:20.017+05:30Why Google should be careful..."With great power, comes great responsibility"...this memorable Spiderman quote is getting relevant for Google now, as it was relevant for Microsoft until sometime ago.<br /><br />I am sure the guys at Google are happy with their new found power, but they need to be careful about using it, as they go on to become the information superpower of the world.<br /><br />In the next few years (if they have not done already) Google should be able to maintain an information catalog of not only what information people access, but how, where and more. They will also soon be able to map these data patterns to actual identities of people (via orkut for example) and create a virtual database of who, where, how and so on.<br /><br />Now this might seem attractive to Google's scientists and business guys, but then there are issues. While ownership of patterns of user behavior and using that to provide services may be acceptable to users, ownership of people's identities may not be acceptable. The line between crossing this critical threshold is thin and Google needs to carefully formulate their vision in this context. Much loved Google can soon become much hated.<br /><br />The internet has done something that world leaders and governments have never wanted to do - break boundaries and create a free world - a true democracy. It has provided people the power to "communicate" and "express" across barriers of geography and social boundaries. This experience of freedom has led to the opening up of minds and a realization of identities beyond the traditional ones of country, religion and local community.<br /><br />People have now started to carve out both personal and multiple community based identities, that are based not on geography but on personal likes and dislikes. Google and others would be well advised to understand that this social phenomena provides a particular direction for the future - you need to give people ownership of their identities, expression and communication. The space Google and others should and can position themselves in, is that of providing the necessary interfaces and services to help people express and communicate their identities.<br /><br />This above formulation of "identity networks", will of course, extend to personal identity and community-based identity and expression. However, it will not be a rigid formulation, but an amorphous one with the networks themselves becoming the data-centers interconnected by interfaces provided by service providers like Google and others.<br /><br />This might well extend beyond the virtual into the real world, with our non-internet social transactions soon being formulated similarly. Large corporations might soon be called upon to give up ownership of material assets to "identity networks" while earn from offering services that facilitate the networks themselves. Employment should give way to shareholding and collaboration.<br /><br />We are entering a more equal world - the powerful would do well to responsibly facilitate this process by anticipating this change and creating an "inclusive" vision of the world.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img src="http://static.delicious.com/img/delicious.small.gif" height="10" width="10" alt="Delicious" />
<a href="http://delicious.com/save" onclick="window.open('http://delicious.com/save?v=5&noui&jump=close&url='+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+'&title='+encodeURIComponent(document.title), 'delicious','toolbar=no,width=550,height=550'); return false;"> Bookmark on Delicious</a></div>saumitrihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05767731603755535710noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6471168715380632267.post-41957583359073283422007-06-26T18:25:00.000+05:302007-06-27T15:53:03.411+05:30Interaction Design and Web 2.0A lot of my friends ask me about Web 2.0 and talk of it as if its the next big thing. But is it really? Or rather what is that makes it the next big thing?<br /><br />IMHO, the most comprehensive understanding of it is available at:<br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html?page=1"><span style="font-size:85%;">http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html?page=1</span></a><br /></span><br />A reading of the above tells me that the implications for a designer are large or small based on how she has been doing design. As a core discipline, in design, to question the existing and innovate is not a new concept. Hence, to re-invent the way the web is used is not a big thing. To make the interface or user experience richer is not a new thing.<br /><br />What then is new?<br />1. Technology - Its a big shift for the techies to think that the web itself can be thought of as a platform. And then to use technologies based on this platform to design scalable, robust applications that handle loads of data is a big mind-shift. Once the techies "get the idea", the designer now has available to her the tools and the implementation inclination that will help her convert the designs into reality.<br /><br />So now, the designer can try out the effects and transitions that rival a real life simulation and be positive that technologies exist that will help implement those interactions. The techie on the other hand is now willing to try out hyped up AJAX technologies and frameworks, besides a host of proprietary as well as open-source stuff like Flex and OpenLaszlo.<br /><br />The only problem though is that in India some of the good programmers still consider these technologies as UI stuff as against "core" programming languages like Java and C++. The flip-side is that stuff like Flex and Laszlo require good programming skills and a highly creative problem solving mind.<br /><br />2. User participation - This is a shift for all. The differentiation between a content provider and a content consumer is now blurred. The design now allows the user (the erstwhile "content consumer") to generate and use the content. The benefits are of transparency and a more realistic context. The disadvantage is that it requires a "long tail" to filter out junk that comes with open participation.<br /><br />The concept of participatory design though is great news in terms of bringing user experience to a new level providing more engagement and greater transparency. This concept has the potential to alter the user engagement models in many a domain and make it more dynamic and realistic.<br /><br />Infact the best way to beat Google in the search domain is to move away from algorithmic refinement of search to user refinement. And believe me there are a bunch of mavericks out there who are doing that already.<br /><br />Frankly, besides these 2 points worth noting, I guess the other concepts are an endeavor that every designer would anyway be called me make. Hence, for the interaction designer, Web 2.0 should mean the technology that affords richer interactions, but more so, the motivation to provide direct and transparent user involvement in the application, by design.<br /><br />There is one simple thing though - the next version of the web, Web 2.0 if you call it, will be driven by the designer and her imagination.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img src="http://static.delicious.com/img/delicious.small.gif" height="10" width="10" alt="Delicious" />
<a href="http://delicious.com/save" onclick="window.open('http://delicious.com/save?v=5&noui&jump=close&url='+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+'&title='+encodeURIComponent(document.title), 'delicious','toolbar=no,width=550,height=550'); return false;"> Bookmark on Delicious</a></div>saumitrihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05767731603755535710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6471168715380632267.post-66620883562625080722007-06-19T19:55:00.000+05:302007-06-19T20:07:37.769+05:30Let me do Usability...A common refrain I hear amongst usability practitioners is that they are not allowed to do usability but asked to design. What they mean is that they are not being allowed to meet users, understand user tasks and yet required to come up with the "screens".<br /><br />Obviously the guys asking them to do this magic are "stupid" (and i shall not be polite). They are asking the designer to design in the blind. Its like asking a developer to write code without doing the requirements. But then you always meet "stupid" clients and you have to earn your bread from them. So what do you do?<br /><br />As a usability professional you have to understand that you design your product both for your users and your clients. So you are basically a facilitator of the design. While its important for you to align yourself to user requirements, its equally important for you to align with your clients' business goals and needs. Once you can align with your clients' goals and needs, you will become a trusted friend and your advice will be followed.<br /><br />In the beginning, you will not be using a lot of your usability expertise. You will mostly be designing in the blind doing probably a combination of the following:<br />1. Removing clutter<br />2. Organizing and grouping content and layout<br />3. Optimizing tasks<br />4. Suggesting incremental improvements<br />5. Reviewing and suggesting future direction<br /><br />The above can actually improve the product a lot, and bring an almost "crappy" interface to a professionally designed level. It may not be the most usable yet - but it will add such tremendous value that it will help you gain trust.<br /><br />Once the trust is gained, you have done 50% of your job. You now need to start getting the users perspective into it. Armed with knowledge about the product and the trust of your client, you will be in a position to now influence your client to do user research/testing and move the product to the next level.<br /><br />However, this is easier said than done. This step needs a certain skill - the ability to move and shake and push things - if you are now going to give up and not push ahead, you will never be able to and soon you will lose the trust you have gained. Only a pro-active stance, a sharp mind and the ability to grasp situations and provide direction helps here - remember you are an expert and have been called for either as a usability or a design consultant. Sometimes this calls for you to raise your level to one of your client's level. Many projects my team and I work on require us to work with CEOs and VPs, many of them from ivy-league US Business schools with several years of experience and a razor sharp mind. We are mostly required to rise above our own capacities and perform. A few ideas on how this can be done are:<br /><br />1. Read, read and read - not just about usability, but business, technology and everything that you can lay your hands on.<br />2. Connect the dots - reading is not enough unless you can assimilate what you read and build them into a model that helps you make sense of the world around you.<br />3. Apply the knowledge - once you have learnt things, put them into action. Don't be afraid of failure - you never know which idea of yours might just click.<br />4. Share what you learn - only the incapable are insecure. Once you have learnt, go ahead and share it, so that others can learn, comment and help you refine your ideas.<br />5. Communicate - as you refine your thoughts, try and articulate it. Soon it will become a habit and you will be able to communicate with the best, including your clients.<br /><br />Doing usability or design is a tough job. Only if we do it responsibly, while building trust and providing value, will we be allowed to do it.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img src="http://static.delicious.com/img/delicious.small.gif" height="10" width="10" alt="Delicious" />
<a href="http://delicious.com/save" onclick="window.open('http://delicious.com/save?v=5&noui&jump=close&url='+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+'&title='+encodeURIComponent(document.title), 'delicious','toolbar=no,width=550,height=550'); return false;"> Bookmark on Delicious</a></div>saumitrihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05767731603755535710noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6471168715380632267.post-28026888770775209222007-06-15T18:07:00.000+05:302007-06-15T18:08:19.592+05:30On Product Innovation...…from “How users use it” to “How users will use it”…<br /><br />A generation of usability people seem to have got trained on usability methods that espouse mapping the user’s mental model and using that for design. Ideally whatever the intention is, practically, it stymies new idea generation. Mostly, it ends up generating an existing usage pattern and the resulting design is almost always cliche.<br /><br />Traditional usability methods, because of their origins in psychology, concentrate on identifying present inefficiencies in user task performance and improving them assuming that the other influencing factors like systems, environment and technology are given as part of the brief. Convergence is the single-most important philosophy here.<br /><br />Innovation differs. It questions the whole system and is based on foretelling the future. Therefore, it calls for explorative methods which are part of an artist or designer’s toolset. Divergence and convergence together form the bane of innovation.<br /><br />One of the tools for innovation is scenario building. Scenario building, as in usability practice is focussed on mapping the current usage situation. However, for innovation its a tool to foretell the future. One needs to start by diverging and constructing scenarios for the future, say, 15 years, 10 years, 5 years from now. A mix of evaluation and intuition can help converge on the most promising idea. The next step then is to trace back the path to the present, identifying a reverse-track along the way that can be used to put in place all the systems and artifacts required to precede and therefore facilitate the future scenario. Jeff Bezos’ Amazon.com could not have been born had there not been in place the preceding ideas of a credit card, the required technology and the internet, all of them coming together on the track to create the reality of Amazon.com as we know it today.<br /><br />Its been said that Google never needs to sell itself much - all it does is identify what is going to happen tomorrow and just be present there when the time arrives. However, its not so easy - it takes a careful amount of scenario building for the future to be there when it matters, while putting together all the parts of the jig-saw puzzle along the way.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img src="http://static.delicious.com/img/delicious.small.gif" height="10" width="10" alt="Delicious" />
<a href="http://delicious.com/save" onclick="window.open('http://delicious.com/save?v=5&noui&jump=close&url='+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+'&title='+encodeURIComponent(document.title), 'delicious','toolbar=no,width=550,height=550'); return false;"> Bookmark on Delicious</a></div>saumitrihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05767731603755535710noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6471168715380632267.post-46692908653582179922007-06-14T18:06:00.000+05:302007-06-15T18:14:59.443+05:30Where from here...How and where do I progress in my career as a usability professional?<br /><br />I am sure this question pops-up in every usability practitioner's mind, especially in India.<br /><br />I have noticed that as people move from being a new entrant in the field of usability to have spent a few years in it, a certain disillusionment sets in. People start having doubts with regard to what they are learning, and whether they are making fruitful use of their education and talent. Very soon, restlessness sets in and people hop jobs rewarded by the short term increase in salary and a change in environment.<br /><br />From the organization's point of view, its difficult to get people with the ready combination of talent and ability in usability. After spending a lot of time, effort and money in training people, just when these people are ready to be on the job, they move on.<br /><br />Over a period of time, experienced usability professionals, in their prime, move onto management and related fields, leaving a vacuum at the top. Not only does quality of work suffer, but the profession as a whole suffers, since the inexperienced ones don't get mentorship.<br /><br />I have often wondered what causes this and the answer i think lies in the way our profession is structured. Ideally, this is a profession where a range of skills, both in breadth and depth matters. And then the added ability to draw upon experience and exposure to apply those skills in a business environment.<br /><br />Given the above, if we look at a similar profession, for example in a law firm, a new entrant enters as a "junior", apprentices under experienced people, takes up individual responsibility as an "associate" and finally moves on to become a "partner". During this progression, which might roughly take some 15 to 20 years, a person becomes an expert, possibly in a particular field of law - and with this expertise comes prestige and money. At each point in time, the lawyer knows the next step forward and this helps him hone his skills and ability to perform in his profession. Alternatives to the profession in terms of working for a corporate do exist, but the benchmarks are all set in terms of expertise. Similar is the progression for a doctor.<br /><br />However, for usability, we lack this graded progression. At no point in time is a usability person clear about how much expertise he has gained. This lack of understanding probably is a result of the peculiar nature of our profession. While lawyers have to stand upto the coded law of the land and doctors have to succeed in the cure, the success of the usability person cannot be measured as objectively. It is mostly subject to client expectations and a host of other factors and hence deliverables come in all sizes and shapes. A deliverable that works for a particular scenario, is unacceptable in another.<br /><br />Then there is the peculiar scenario of each and every person from related fields wanting to jump into the high-demand opportunity of the job scenario of usability. To practice law you need a degree in law. To practice medicine you need a degree as well. But to practice usability you don't need any. Because the demand is high, people get hired with no formal degree at all - and those getting hired don't want to invest in a degree. Its like the huge gold rush - mint it as long as it lasts. The problem is - its not going to last long unless you have invested in it.<br /><br />Given the peculiarities then, what and how can these practitioners know their way?<br /><br />The answer lies in adopting some kind of a model that recognizes expertise, formal or informal. One way might be to accept that this profession calls for life-long learning and experience and only as one progresses can one perfect the use of tools, develop better skills and become a master in its application. This might be wishful thinking, but i wonder if we can adopt the ranking model that martial arts like karate or judo use. What we will need is some kind of standardization in terms of defining what would constitute a progression in terms of learning, as is the case with these martial arts.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img src="http://static.delicious.com/img/delicious.small.gif" height="10" width="10" alt="Delicious" />
<a href="http://delicious.com/save" onclick="window.open('http://delicious.com/save?v=5&noui&jump=close&url='+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+'&title='+encodeURIComponent(document.title), 'delicious','toolbar=no,width=550,height=550'); return false;"> Bookmark on Delicious</a></div>saumitrihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05767731603755535710noreply@blogger.com3