I got worked up in a tizzy recently and had to have a drink with international sex symbol Dennis Wixon. I told Dennis that some of our lab work (which includes protocol analysis and RITE method) can feel like administrative busy work, especially if the person doing that work is an outsider to the project team. The role becomes meeting organizer. Organize the meeting of target users and stakeholders. It’s possible to be brought in to projects without an understanding of the business goals, the target customers, the design requirements, the purpose of the product, and the design decisions that need to be made. Not knowing these things, doesn’t set up the person doing this work to make very good design recommendations. Do the designers want an outside perspective? Not really. They have enough opinions from others. Do they want a meeting organizer? Yes, but is there more?
Dennis reminded me that facilitation skills are essential. I didn’t like the answer at first, but he’s right. There are many stakeholders involved in problem identification and generating solutions. There are designers, janitors, product managers, cooks, engineers, testers, marketers, executives, accountant’s, receptionists, lawyers and their lawyers. Researchers can be good people to facilitate the formation of stakeholder’s interpretation and conclusions of user’s behavior. Researcher can know which verbal reports are useful and useless pieces of data. The good researchers know the important differences between a sequence of thoughts generated by users solving problems and social verbalizations used to commuicate through descriptions, justification and rationalization. It is the researcher’s job to get stakeholders looking at the best data. Lead them through their own analysis and interpretation of observations. Influence their conclusions. Faciliate the process of making good product design decisions.
I have not thought much about what it takes to be a good facilitator. Experimental psychologist, sociologist, anthropologists and other social scientists that research people aren’t necessarily educated in the art of facilitation any more than designers, engineers, marketers and business managers. Researchers that know how to facilitate a group of stakeholders to make the best decisions from good data will be highly regarded. It’s the researcher’s facilitation skills that can make the difference when dropped in to projects to coordinate the meetings between target users and stakeholders.
On the last day of this year’s IDSA conference in Miami, Rob and I shared a cab to the airport with Stuart Constantine, core77 co-founder. The three of us were recovering from an all night binge of conference party shenanigans, but we somehow mustered the strength to talk shop. We talked about the trouble John Kolko had stirred with his recent blog post on the future of industrial design. We also discussed how some of the conference presentations and discussions challenged the relevance of industrial design to today’s social and economic demands. It became clear that there was a growing chasm between old industrial design and new industrial design.
What emerged from all this talk was a manifesto to the industrial design community. Read it on www.core77.com. In it I suggest ten things an industrial designer can do to redefine their profession. Check it out and let me know what you think.
Gizmodo recently posted news about an android application that enables drivers to augment what they see from the car with turn-by-turn directions. Cool application, but in an era where we may already have too many driving distractions, it got me thinking about the relationship of information and technologies to automotive experiences.
PART 1: Defining Auto-Mobile
Mobility
As far as we can remember, the notion of ‘mobility’ has meant transportation from A to B. Transportation via foot, train, car, and airplane fulfilled a desire to connect the world of people and information. And the desire for better and faster mobility has led to the invention of the internet, mobile phone, and social networking services. Today, ‘mobility’ no longer solely represents the idea of transportation. It is now about the freedom of accessing information and an ability to communicate to whomever,whenever. Information in this mobile form has enabled a complex network of geographical and social communication channels that distribute an overwhelming amount of information, data and interactions between people. For example, powered by mobile devices like the iPhone, Twitter has been used to spread breaking news and receive updates from field reporters and public observers. This living stream of information and how we are connected to it is something that we can no longer avoid or ignore. Today we live mobile lives, always connected to information.
Automobile
Now, let’s talk about cars and mobility. What does the automobile mean to people today? The word automobile comes from combining Greek word “auto” meaning self and Latin word “mobils” meaning moving. Literally translated, it means to move itself. Within the context of the modern definition of ‘mobility’, an automobile should not only move itself physically, but offer a way of moving our ‘connected’ life style and information. Automobiles are often a catalyst for bringing new technologies into the mass market. In its effort to offer the best at-wheel experience, a modern automobile is equipped with numerous sensors and gadgets. At its best, a modern automobile offers a level of connection and integration by supporting portable and wireless devices. Moreover, the connection to external data via GPS/satellite assists the driver to stay on route with updated information such as traffic condition. But these technologies don’t quench the driver’s thirst for seamless integration like they’ve learned to expect from a mobile phone or the internet. Safety concerns limit the access to various types of information at the wheel. But it is still tempting to send text message, talk on the phone, or watch a favorite movie from the laptop mounted to the dashboard while driving. These behaviors demonstrate that consumers desire a connected lifestyle in an automobile, even though it means jeopardizing their safety. The automotive industry clearly has a challenge to meet these demands with the highest priority in safety.
Designers shape the relationships between people and objects or environments. Therefore, we should be leaders on issues of sustainability. Sustainability is broad and there are many ways to influence through design.* For now I have a thought on influencing people’s consumption behaviors.
It seems like every day we hear about a new technical advancement that promises less waste and more efficiency. But any technology advancement has to contend with our ever-growing appetite for resources, which is the true root of the problem. I would argue the larger challenge - or imperative - is in changing behavior. There’s a menagerie of devices and services appearing that are designed to help you monitor your energy usage. They’re getting a lot of attention but I think there’s a more effective way to create broad behavioral change.
The Monitors, and How They Fall Short
These designs show your usage in real-time and historically, and some provide a cue when electricity prices are high (in areas where pricing varies) or when you’re using more than usual. Great stuff - and smart to tie in financial benefits of conservation. Links are at the end. Some incorporate design “nudges,” popularized in a recent book, that help people make better choices.
But my enthusiasm faded as I kept looking. These are mostly special-purpose designs made just for awareness. The early adopters who use them are a small group of people who already have intrinsic motivation to conserve. There’s a big gap between them and the rest of the world. A more ambitious goal should be to influence more people, because even small changes - if mass-adopted - will have a bigger impact than the best efforts of the small group of devotees. To get there, sustainability must be a design factor in everyday products, not a special goal for extra devices.
Another thing that struck me is how isolated some of the nudges can be from the related behaviors. Imagine seeing an angry red glow and trying to find the culprit in your home; it’s too abstracted from the behaviors that set this usage in motion. For broad change, discovering the connection between information and behavior shouldn’t require extra work or it’s less likely to succeed.
An Alternative: Contextual Intervention
There is a great opportunity to make contextual interventions during people’s behaviors. The intervention might be a change in affordances or simply information. It’s like a nudge but the key is to design influences that are tightly coupled with specific user behavior, making a feedback loop that takes advantage of the way we naturally learn. Thus, it isn’t helping analyze your utility bill, it’s suggesting that you turn off the faucet while you’re not using it. Here are some examples of the kind of thing I’m talking about.
The “Faucet Buddy” shows you just how much you’re wasting while you shave or brush your teeth. I’d bet this is all the cue many people need to stop the tap while they’re not using it. That saves both water and energy from the water heater. My landlord recently installed compact fluorescent bulbs and I could easily see him lowering his water costs (he pays for water) by giving these to tenants. I only wish it used a less formal unit than liters - something that connects the quantity to its source or destination perhaps?
The Honda Insight comes with a speedometer that changes color. Efficient braking and acceleration lead to a rewarding green glow. The Prius has something similar. Nissan has a force-feedback pedal coupled with visual cues that provide more resistance with less efficient acceleration. It’s one thing to show your MPG but better contextual intervention provides immediate feedback explicitly tied to current braking, acceleration, or idling to influence it in the short term and teach over time.
The Disappearing Pattern Tiles have a pattern material that vanishes in the heat of the shower. The longer the shower, the less pattern. With this particular pattern, I think that’s actually a reward, but the idea is sound. It’s a simple but obvious cue that just might keep your fingers from wrinkling and your bill from soaring. Plus, no extra power cost - it uses waste heat. It doesn’t convey impact but could be a good reminder.
The Gravia lamp runs for 4 hours powered by a falling weight. You must manually start the weight at the top to get it going again, like the process of winding a watch or clock. It’s very difficult to conceptualize energy like we can with material resources; equating it to physical effort is a great idea. The connection is reinforced every time you charge it.
Amazon.com offers the default option to “Group my items into as few shipments as possible.” Similarly, when you schedule your deliveries from one UK grocer, you’re shown all the times their trucks will be nearby already. They both miss an opportunity to complete the feedback loop with information on the impact of the choice, but they’re influential designs at the time of choice.
Design Principles for Successful Contextual Intervention
So what’s contextual intervention? ‘Contextual’ means a cue that occurs at the time of a behavior - it also implies that the cue is built in to a useful function, not a design meant solely to provide the cue. ‘Intervention’ means the cue exposes a desired choice with an effective influence, and also teaches over time. It does not mean choice is removed, but rather that the consequences are conveyed. Here are a few principles to make the most of these designs.
Ideally, the solutions require little or no extra consumption. I love the idea of using waste energy itself to provide information about the usage, like the tiles.
Use impact as the cue. It might work to just default to the preferred choice, but drawing a connection to quantities and consequences helps raise awareness that goes beyond your design.
Minimize extra steps for the user. The Gravia is a great concept in connecting behavior to energy but if it fails in broad acceptance, this is why. People won’t easily sacrifice convenience.
Minimize new purchases and material impact. As McLuhan said, “the medium is the message.” If your design has a big material footprint while encouraging sustainable behavior, people will notice the hypocrisy.
Be familiar. Characterize impact in an accessible way. Kilowatt-hours aren’t valuable feedback until you understand their relation to your behavior intuitively. Start with something easy to relate.
Be encouraging. Positive reinforcement tied to a good choice has been shown to effect behavior change; chastising is counter-productive (and probably won’t sell).
Be honest. Don’t exaggerate. Green-washing is a serious impediment to informed decisions for change.
Do you have other examples of contextual intervention? Add a comment below.
*Learn more on sustainability elsewhere [sustainability, ‘triple bottom line’]. Why should you care? There are lots of reasons. Social, ecological, national security [123]… Besides, you may miss a new wave of consumer demand or find yourself unprepared when clients ask for your perspective.
So you’ve got an idea for software or a product that’s so easy, so beneficial, that it’s for everyone: the general public. Well, you’re wrong.
Ok, that’s a little harsh. But we find it’s often over-optimism. Other times it’s beneficence: we’ve had several projects where the goal is to release information freely to the world for the greater good, reaching as many people as we can. The Encyclopedia of Life is one example (see our first post about it). In either case there’s a real danger that if you think you’re making something for everyone, you might end up appealing to no one. People have such very different needs (even from the same information) that you can’t serve all of them.
There are at least two ways to go wrong:
1. Just design with the features that naturally seem needed. After all, ‘everyone’ includes you. This is the more common error. Here’s the problem in an example:
Due to differences in age and digital literacy, my grandmother and my cousin have only one single electronic device they both use every day (any guesses?). She’ll only use something if you’ve taken great care to design it for her, and he’ll drop it as soon as it’s missing something he wants. There’s a big difference between designing a smart phone for him and a Jitterbug phone built with hardware and services targeted at seniors for her. There are lots of other factors: disposable income, communication habits, media consumption, nationality and culture, internet connectivity, and many more. It’s important to know which ones matter for your idea.
2. Try to accommodate everyone under the sun: grandmothers, toddlers, and your neighbor’s dog. Support every type of user’s key tasks by adding buttons or deepening navigation and soon everyone has a harder time finding and using what they need. The opportunity to make a great experience for some gets diluted into a mediocre experience for all and, despite your intentions, that might mean no one uses it. Does my digital picture frame really need to support on board photo editing? And printing? Play MP3s? Read RSS and show sports scores? When using it, it might be complex to simply avoid what you don’t need.
So you want broad appeal and good design. How can you start identifying your users?
As a warm-up, think of some well-known groups or use the ones others have identified, like tweens or business travelers. We’ve done brainstorming sessions where we randomly pair a particular segment of people with particular capabilities. You might find some groups yield more ideas than others.
Next, are you building on an existing product? Talk to the product team. If that’s you, think about the usage and feedback data you could gather. Or maybe there’s something else out there that has some similar qualities. See if you can learn about the people using it, and especially how and why. A lot of times you might be surprised. Twitter’s creators were surprised when the service was used by news, emergency response organizations, and politicians. The film industry once tried to kill VCRs but in the end they were largely used for purchased and rented content, which was a huge boon for them. Look carefully and you might find an unmet need that could be an opportunity.
Now think of the qualities of your idea that clearly distinguish it from others. Do any of these qualities seem aligned to particular groups you can identify? For example, if your offering is a new communication tool, you might think of teens, who are notorious communicators in multiple modalities.
Go out and test your theories. If you’re right you can look at their tasks and needs to start getting a vision of the product.
I’m not suggesting that you need to focus on only one specific group to get a good result. But the more you focus on a coherent target, the better chance you have of attracting and exciting them. If you nail it, they’re likely to bring other groups with them.
How are Industrial Design and Interaction Design different? Is it true that Industrial Designers drink more during work hours? Are Interaction Designers better looking?
Tomorrow night: Artefact will be presenting with Carbon alongside frog design, Microsoft Hardware, Fluke, and Hornall at frog design in Seattle. If you’re a fan of game shows, in flight entertainment, or Christopher Konrad, then you will love this event.
Learn more about the “soft” and “hard” sides of product design. See work that was designed by Artefact and Carbon working together.
Event Details When: Wednesday, July 22nd. Doors open at 6:30, presentation starts at 7:00. Where: frog design at 5th and Pine in Seattle - 413 Pine Street, Seattle, WA 98101 [map link] Fee: Free!
Don’t forget to follow us on Twitter for the play by play @artefactgroup
by Christopher Konrad, posted January 29th, 2010
by 
by 
