Tag: design

The Social Blue Light Filter
“When one tugs at a single thing in nature, he finds it attached to the rest of the world”.
John Muir
“This was supposed to be the summer of George”
A saddened George Costanza
On New Year’s Eve 2019, millions around the world were making resolutions of bettering themselves and enriching their lives. Finally taking the time to practice piano, adopt a vegetarian diet, and meditate every day. Personally, I wanted to take more opportunities to travel this year. I boarded a plane just once in 2019, from Phoenix to Burbank to see close friends graduate from college. Shortly into 2020, something happened that took us from bright-eyed and bushy-tailed to pessimistic, isolated, and stressed-out.
When COVID-19 took center stage in March, I have to admit that, as an introvert, I couldn’t help being slightly relieved that I had been given a legitimate excuse to avoid all social gatherings for the foreseeable future. Instead of trying to come up with lousy excuses or feign illness, I simply didn’t have to worry about going into the office, making social plans, or dating.
Having been a practiced pseudo-hermit, I thought that staying in quarantine from the world outside of groceries and the occasional stroll would be a cinch. Now, going on six months of the “Ronaissance” or the “Zoom Gloom,” the lifestyle that the pandemic has forced is taking a toll on my perception of the world in many aspects, one being social. Even with all the technology Silicon Valley has to offer at our disposal, can experiencing anything through a screen replace the benefits of real-world social interactions?
Like it, Love it, Gotta Have it
“Man is by nature a social animal; an individual who is unsocial naturally and not accidentally is either beneath our notice or more than human. Society is something that precedes the individual. Anyone who either cannot lead the common life or is so self-sufficient as not to need to, and therefore does not partake of society, is either a beast or a god. ”
Artistotle, Politics
It’s well understood that humans are social creatures. Even if you’re a self-proclaimed misanthrope, there’s a biological component to being human that necessitates some form of social connection. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs places psychological needs just above being fed, warm, and safe.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
According to Maslow, humans possess an effective need for a sense of belonging and acceptance among social groups, regardless of whether these groups are large or small. Feeling love or having a sense of belonging is foundational to feeling accomplished and truly fulfilled. We know that there’s more to “success” than money, and only we can define what that means for ourselves.
As a society, we’ve been staying connected more than ever before in the last 20 years or so, mainly through social media like Facebook and Twitter. We’ve also stayed connected through the help of things like online video games, where conversations can range from catching up with your friends to yelling profanities at your virtual enemies.
The main way we are “staying connected” during COVID appears to be through a variety of video calls. We use Zoom for work, FaceTime or Google Hangouts for friends, and maybe throw an app like Houseparty in there for good measure. We have a lot of chat-based apps like Discord or Slack that can simulate real-time talking with people all over the world over text or video, but are these options good enough for us to satisfy our needs for social connection?
One is the loneliest number
You may have heard that in our increasingly remote age, there is another epidemic taking place globally: loneliness. It’s really interesting that even though we’re more connected than ever in numerous ways, we’ve also never been more lonely.
According to Dr. John Cacioppo, a Professor of Neuroscience and director of the Center for Cognitive and Social Neuroscience at the University of Chicago, the physical effects of loneliness and social isolation are as real as any other physical detriment to the body — such as thirst, hunger, or pain. He says, “For a social species, to be on the edge of the social perimeter is to be in a dangerous position.” It’s specified that to satisfy our need for social connection, we need to be around people we actually like or care about. Unfortunately, taking cover behind shopping aisles to narrowly avoid your talkative neighbor at the grocery store doesn’t really fit the bill.
In part of a 2007 research report from Wellesley College, it’s described that scientists in the fields of psychology and psychiatry “…have now really determined, without a doubt, that our brains are hardwired to connect: that we have mirror neurons that fire in response to the firing of another person’s neurons; that we actually have parts of the brain that atrophy in isolation.”
We can look at the importance of human connection when it’s especially important, when we’re growing up. Our familial relationships and friendships, among other factors, are crucial to a healthy prefrontal cortex development, and helps to set us up well for our future both mentally and physically.
There’s not an app for that, yet
Social media is a double-edged sword. In smaller doses it can be highly valuable, but social platforms are designed to keep you engaged and become addicted. Technology has been able to help us become more social online, but when you throw something like a global pandemic into the mix, we can see that it’s only come so far. I don’t believe the fulfillment of our cognitive needs by social stimuli will come from a download in the app store, but we can’t let our thinking be constrained by that.
I’m not going to throw the technological baby out with the bathwater and say technology can’t help solve this problem. Rather, it can help put us on the path to a solution. I can imagine a future where I can have coffee with friends of mine in my kitchen without them actually being there. I’m thinking that the holograms of Star Wars aren’t that crazy of an idea after all.
Ask yourself, “How can we be with other people without being with other people?” and you’ll get a lot of answers involving looking at a screen or texting. In the future, and not necessarily a distant one, we might be able to have dinner with friends in a different state or country without looking at them on an iPad. We’ve seen demonstrations of projections occupying physical space before, so it’s not entirely out of the realm of possibility that technology will be leveraged for this type of problem.
I think when dealing with such large and extensive problems like global loneliness, it requires more than one solution, and we can’t simply just “How might we…” ourselves out of it. Design-thinking and human-centered design can and will definitely help move the needle of solving humanities’ big issues, but we shouldn’t fool ourselves into thinking one group of people will have the metaphorical light bulb over their heads and save us all.
Where to go from here
The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed numerous issues in our society, from education and healthcare, to economic and social. My hope is that instead of just racing for a vaccine and trying to move on with our lives, but that we also take the time as a society to learn from this experience. COVID-19 didn’t directly cause some of these problems — it simply revealed them.
Staying connected is a problem that has plagued us as a society since social media really took off. If I can get a hit of dopamine from a like on my tweet, why do I need to waste my time at a bar with friends? There are psychological and physiological reasons why spending time with people in person is important, and maybe as research continues we might find other ways of socializing with similar benefits.
I don’t believe that as of this time, staying connected virtually can take the place of in-person social gathering. However, for public health reasons it has to be our obligation. It’s moderately helpful mentally, that there will be a time in the hopefully not-too-distant future where we are able to spend time with people in person again.
As someone who doesn’t consider himself particularly social, I’ve acknowledged that I need some real face time. I took a lot of my in-person experiences for granted before the pandemic, such as going to the office, going out to eat, or to the gym. We’ve been given an opportunity for all of us to really experience a problem in our society, and we owe it to ourselves to give it a proper examination for potential improvements to the way we live.
September 8, 2020
Parallels of the Scientific Method and Design-Thinking
When I was in middle school, I first learned about the scientific method. I was told there exists a process that scientists follow to make discoveries, and was amazed that I could follow the same process that impactful scientists follow in my own classroom.
We spent many lessons conducting experiments and following this process, asking questions, and testing our theories. I was never great at science in an academic sense, nonetheless I always found it interesting and recognized its importance.
From Design to Science and back again
At its core, the scientific method is a problem-solving framework. The steps are as follows:
1. Make an observation
2. Ask a question
3. Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation
4. Make a prediction based on the hypothesis
5. Test the prediction
6. Iterate
If you’re a design practitioner or in the tech industry, this process may sound familiar to you, and not just because it’s the scientific method that many of us learn in school.
Design-thinking has become a buzzphrase, but has existed in some form for as long as people have been developing products, though it’s been popularized in the last 15 years or so.
The design-thinking framework is as follows:
1. Frame a Question
2. Gather Inspiration
3. Generate Ideas
4. Make Ideas Tangible
5. Test to Learn
6. Share the Story
Lather, rinse, iterate
The main similarities of both lie in the larger idea: testing and iteration. One of the most important aspects of both science and design is to test your ideas in real-world scenarios and iterate as necessary.
Iteration in this context is not repetition, we’re not embodying the old saying, “…doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.” Iteration differs from repetition because when we iterate, we slightly alter what we are testing, not testing the same version over and over again.
Within each iterative step, we test the same version multiple times, but without changing what we test, we’re not getting the best bang for our buck with each round of testing.
No idea is going to be perfect the first time around, so its up to us as developers of ideas and problem solvers to continually iterate and tweak our solution until it’s the best it can be in the given scenario.
When it’s more trouble than it’s worth
Something important to remember is there comes a point of diminishing returns. This applies more-so to product development than scientific work, because developing software doesn’t usually come with the responsibility of something like a life-saving drug.
We can observe diminishing returns when we enjoy a freshly baked chocolate chip cookie. The first cookie is heavenly, so we decide to have another. The second cookie is also delicious, but not quite as enjoyable as the first. If we continue down this path of cookie inhalation, after four or five (to each their own), we probably won’t enjoy them at all anymore.
We can iterate twenty times on something and it might be better than it was the fifteenth time, but after going through the process enough, we can gauge when is truly the balanced time to call it quits.
There’s no hard and fast rule around iteration in software because every situation at each company is different. At some companies, they may find that the sweet spot for them is testing and iterating three or four times before delivering, while others may take eight to ten iterations.
With software (and possibly science, but I wouldn’t know for sure since I’m not a scientist), we have deadlines to hit. We can’t spend the rest of our days iterating on a feature or product until it’s perfect, which is an illusion anyway.
We can iterate and test a handful of times before we have to deliver tangible value to our customers and the business, so it’s important we test the right way, just enough, before iterating again.
Companies tend to follow the Agile methodology, so they have a framework to follow where they can consistently deliver value to the business and the customers over time.
In the days of yore, the de-facto way to build product was using the Waterfall methodology, in contrast to Agile, where teams deliver value in one big release after months or even years of development.
Testing can be hard to do, which is why so many companies simply don’t do it at all. It takes time and upfront effort, and when companies equate value with production, it can be a hard sell to continually do it. There’s been a ton of writing around how to conduct lean user research, so I won’t write about it here.
Our work is never done
Both science and design are “never finished”. Have you ever used a successful piece of software that never has updates? Or seen a news article that reads something like “Coffee is good for you” a year after reading an article titled “Coffee is bad for you”?
That’s kind of the point, though isn’t it? Scientific studies are happening all the time and they’re always proving and disproving hypotheses.
Nothing is certain 100% of the time, especially when dealing with something as erratic as human behavior. As outlined earlier, science usually has more weight to it’s decisions that software, so we don’t need to think that an immutable scientific truth such as gravity can be disproven as easily as a pattern in a social media application.
I like to push the importance of “done over perfect” in my job, but of course there’s a lot of nuance in that phrase. There’s a balance that we are all striving for, while trying to destroy the perfectionist in ourselves. We want the things we deliver to be great without being reckless in our delivery or overthinking ourselves into a rut.
July 20, 2020
Hybrid Working is the Future
Working remotely has been becoming more important as an option for prospective employees when searching for their next venture. If I have kids that sometimes fall ill, will I be able to attend meetings virtually and still take care of my business from home? If my car breaks down on the way to work, can I make progress on my presentation from the repair shop?
These kinds of questions are running through the minds of current and future employees, especially in the tech space. Granted, most jobs in the tech industry can be done remotely. Software engineering, design, QA, and even product management, can all be as successful as a distributed team as a colocated one.
I have a feeling that more and more we will see companies not just allowing X number of work from home days a week or month, and more of all the team is remote on Wednesdays, or something similar.
Right now, I have about a 45 minute commute from my house to my office. As I’ve gotten used to the drive, along with the fact that I listen to audiobooks or podcasts on the way, it has become less and less of a big deal. Of course, I’d like to have a shorter commute, but for right now it could definitely be worse. I’ve spoken to people who have commutes extending over an hour each way, which I find ridiculous.
Of course, there is a case for a bit of a commute, as for many people it’s the only time in the day where we are completely alone with our thoughts, listening to music, a book, the news, or appreciating a bit of silence. I enjoy listening to an audio book while driving, but would I rather have two hours of my day back if I didn’t have to commute? Absolutely.
The reason for remote working is not just about time in our day lost by driving or taking the train. When it comes to hiring, you really can’t beat the fact that you can hire anyone in the world, rather than those just in your area code.
As rent prices in the Bay Area have reached astronomical prices, as well as cities like New York, Seattle, and Chicago, it just makes the most logical sense to have employees than can live anywhere rather than forcing them to be in one of those places.
Companies like Zapier, Gitlab, and InVision have shown that teams can be successful even though they don’t work next to each other.
Another common theme I’ve noticed, especially among designers, is that when they need dedicated time to get some work done, they choose to work from home. With most companies opting for open offices, with all the pros and cons that they come with, it’s no surprise that to be the most productive, employees can have a difficult time concentrating at the office and need to work from home to be uninterrupted. Ambient noise, meetings, getting pulled here and there by coworkers, etc. are all things that have an effect on employee productivity, when dealing with work that requires uninterrupted “flow” state concentration to be the most effective.
It’s easy to walk into any newer office and think, “Wow, all this is such a waste of money.” The physical perks, furniture, office space, and many other things contribute to this opinion.
While I enjoy going into an office, seeing my coworkers and spending face-time with them, there is no doubt that, from a productivity and financial standpoint, remote working trumps working in an office. If I were starting my own company tomorrow, while trying at first to find workers locally, I would keep my search open, and allow remote employees from anywhere in the world.
There are, of course, things that become an issue when working remotely, such as communication, transparency, and collaboration. But all these things can be overcome with good organizational design, effective tools, and a good on-boarding process.
I don’t want to say that it’s as black and white as good and bad, because, especially at this point in my career, I appreciate being in close proximity to my coworkers, learning from them in person, and feeling like I am a part of a physical group.
It’s difficult to argue the fact that a long commute, sometimes unnecessary office perks, and all the extra costs that fall under the physical office space, are not the best use of funds in all situations. I feel that hybrid working is the future, and starting today, most companies can stand to allow remote working when the employees deem needed, without compromising any productivity.
Something to think about: Do you have a long commute to work every day? Are you able to work remotely if possible? If not, see if your company is willing to implement a program to allow for more flexible working.
This was originally published on Prototyper.
May 28, 2019
Being the Only UX Designer on an Agile Team
I started my UX journey as a solo designer, and I found the dynamic of being on a team is totally different than being solo. When you’re solo, you don’t have to worry about collaboration or going to a ton of team meetings. You have enough other things to worry about on your own, though.
Having recently worked on an enterprise software team with Development, QA, and Product team members, I learned a lot about working together, design advocacy, and compromise.
I wanted to share some of the things that I’ve found to be important when working as a UX Designer in general, especially as the only one on a team.
Communication
I’m sure I don’t have to tell any of you that communication is one of the most important factors when it comes to working on a team. Regardless of position in your organization, everyone needs to be a good communicator.
*Being on the same page as your team is possible simply by attending stand-ups and staying active on team chats or emails.*Stay updated on what the team is saying and working on even if you’re not meeting that day.
Be clear about the goals and responsibilities of the team. Everyone should know what everyone else needs to do so if anything comes up, they know who to go to for questions or clarification.
I also learned to voice my opinions and concerns when they arose because it’s always better to talk about things too early rather than too late.
Collaboration
UX design is never done in a vacuum, so working with others is integral to the success of design, even if you’re the only designer on your team.
Personally, I worked very closely with my product manager, because he had much more domain knowledge than me and could help educate me on the more complex parts of our product.
When I had a question on technical capabilities, I would go to one of the developers. Luckily for me, they were always ready to explain something to me or go over an idea and the technical feasibility of that idea.
Although I was the only one doing the design work, I would frequently check in with my team to make sure I was on the right path.
Advocacy
As UX designers, we can hope that our teammates all understand what UX is and what our contribution to the product should be. Not everyone is lucky in this regard, so as designers we have to do our best to advocate for ourselves and our value.
*If the team is talking about a new feature or changing an existing one simply by suggesting solutions, part of our job is to redirect attention to the users, the research, and the business goals.*
By aligning these things in our thought process, we can make better decisions from the get-go instead of backtracking later.
The team dynamic will reflect how they approach problems and view the UX process. Some teams will see the value in things like research and user testing, others will see it as a waste of time. We have to adapt to our own environments and try to get on the same page as our team as best as we can.
Active Listening
Along with the other items on this list, this one is like a superpower if used correctly.
When you’re actively listening, you are fully concentrating on what is being said rather than just passively ‘hearing’ the message of the speaker. This comes in handy when your team is discussing things like the product roadmap, sprint goals, or when a team member is bringing an idea of their own to the table.
If you’ve concentrated on their ideas fully, you can give better feedback and additionally, get more out of constructive criticism that is bound to arise.
When you’re picking up on things like the speaker’s behavior, tone of voice, and reasoning for their statement, you’re already ahead of the game when it comes to listening comprehension.
Wrapping Up
Obviously I’ll never be done learning, nor do I want to be, but these are just a few of the main things I’ve taken away from my time working on a team building software.
- Communication
- Collaboration
- Advocacy
- Active Listening
Something to think about: As the only designer on a team, what kinds of things have you learned so far on top of these topics?
This was originally published on Prototyper.
January 15, 2019
Undertale
Undertale is an RPG created by an indie game developer, Toby Fox. In the game, players control a human child who has fallen into the Underground, a large, secluded region underneath the surface of the Earth, separated by a magic barrier.
The player meets many different beings along the way, some nice, some not so nice. The player also engages in battles and conversations, which the actions dictate the outcome of the game.
Undertale was made by one person, but exhibits humor, emotion, replay-ability, and ease of access. He not only made the whole game and all of the music, but put so much thought into the relationships that it can feel really great or really regrettable depending on your choices.
Character development goes so far as to a pair of skeleton brothers who’s names are the font of their words
The game is simple, with only arrow keys as controls for most of the game. This allows essentially all players the ability to enjoy the game. From a usability standpoint, this is great because many people with disabilities cannot use a mouse at their computer. Most PC games require mice and sometimes even an exceptionally fast gaming computer. Undertale is beautiful because it opens up its walls to all and anyone with an interest can play the game.
The graphics are charming, but pixelated. There is no 60 fps required for enjoyment. All of the factors of this product are accessible, and Mr. Fox thought of these when creating his claim to fame.
The game represents diversity, even when talking about monsters. You feel like you are in another world, but it seems familiar in a way. The game gives you the freedom of choice, along with repercussions for your choices, good and bad.
This is a good example of what a game can become with the right intentions. The game is usable, ethical, and accessible. The reception reflected that and made Toby Fox and Undertale very well known in the indie game world.
Something to think about: What other games can you think of that give a nod to usability and ethics?
This was originally posted on Medium.
February 28, 2018
Information Architecture (IA)
Information architecture (IA) is a professional practice and field of studies focused on solving the basic problems of accessing, and using, the vast amounts of information available today.
In simple terms, it answers the questions:
Where am I? What am I looking at? Where else can I go?
Information architecture if done well, allows the user to navigate around a website or application with ease, and gives them the best way to accomplish their goal.
The term “information architecture” was first coined by Richard Saul Wurman in 1975. Wurman was trained as an architect, but became interested in the way information is gathered, organized and presented to convey meaning. Wurman’s initial definition of information architecture was “organizing the patterns in data, making the complex clear”.
This is commonly how IA is represented.
There are two main approaches to defining an information architecture. These are:
- Top-down information architecture: This involves developing a broad understanding of the business strategies and user needs, before defining the high level structure of site, and finally the detailed relationships between content.
- Bottom-up information architecture: This involves understanding the detailed relationships between content, creating walkthroughs (or storyboards) to show how the system could support specific user requirements and then considering the higher level structure that will be required to support these requirements.
The most common methods of defining and IA are things like site maps, page templates and layouts, to personas and storyboards.
Without a good IA, people will have a difficult time finding what they need to on a page or website, and most likely not come back. Just like with architects of buildings, if they do not design with codes, accessibility, and the user in mind, the final product suffers.
Something to think about: What websites do you frequent that have good IA? Which ones are not so good?
This was originally published on Medium.
February 27, 2018