michael dain function

2012

October Doing good work

I have a new position at Central Coast Agency working with some new friends and trying to make some good work for our clients. I'm happy to be a Creative Director now, although it does push my efforts into guiding both concept and delivery – but that's a good thing.

One thing I do enjoy is the critiques of work, trying to inspire the team to make the work better. This takes me back to my days in Art School, which led me to this extremely insightful list compiled by the great Art History Professor James Elkins from the Art Institute of Chicago. He tried to complile all the negative words used in a critique, which as you can see is pretty long. Ironically, words of praise are far fewer, and less used, but he's compiling those as well for another post.

Didactic
Anachronistic
Fancy
Pretty
Merely pretty
Vague
Just fun
Easy
Almost insulting
Boring
Bland
Dull
Painfully dull
Unintelligent
Stupid
Trite
Doesn't make sense
Has useless additions
Uninvolved
Dishonest
Immoral
Stupidly, gratuitously immoral
Unreflective
Over-controlled
Uncontrolled
Weak
Thin
Odd
Not odd enough
Too much
Self-serving
Too amiable
Simple
Simplistic
Literal-minded
Corny
Ridiculous
Awful ("bloomin' awful," etc.)
No motivation
Impersonal
Careless
Makeshift
Thoughtless
Been there, done that
Poor composition
Maudlin
Melodramatic
Too sci-fi
Schlocky
Garish
Kitsch
Not close enough to kitsch
Its only thrill is how close it can get to kitsch
Not kitschy enough
Unaware it's humorous
Distracting use of medium
Obvious
Blunt
In your face
Gratuitous appropriations
Obscure
Obscure, bordering on obtuse
Condescending
Heartless
Repetitive
Incoherent
Too satisfying
Plays to the audience
Manipulative
Looks lousy
Commercial
Overly commercial
Subject matter and idea are disconnected
Form and content are disconnected
Too serious
Too corporate
Too manly
Sexist
Silly
Too light
Too dark
Finicky
Unstable
Neither accessible to all, nor accessible to none
Colors dissonant
Colors too harmonious
No congruence between artist, aim, and result
Cute
Too cute
Cutesy
Sweet
Campy
Stale
Mismatched styles
Half-hearted
Disengaged
Less than overwhelming
Too overwhelming
Cultish about the avant-garde
Looks like art
Too trendy
Wrong medium
Propaganda
Illustrates a theory
Too systematic
Formulaic
Makes no sense, but seems like it should
Just tossed off
Badly done
Mystical
Spiritual
Not spiritual
Intentions unclear
Intentions too clear
Meaningless
Empty
Bullshit
Lets the critics dictate its meanings
Implies a meaning, but has none
Not in control of possible meanings
Indecisive
Unfocused
Pointless
Aimless
Hopeless
Senseless
Mindless
Painless
Apathetic
Lacks apathy (too committed)
Wash-out
Unconvincing
Unconfident
Waste of time
Hypocritical
Happy
Amiable
Easy
Funny, but so what?
Self-censored
A one-liner
An ad
Too slick
Cheesy
A cliché
Propaganda
A slogan
A message
Intrusive
Heavy-handed
Contrived
Merely aesthetic
Not aesthetic enough
Tries too hard
Lost
Naïve
Cloying
Sentimental
Romantic
Romanticizing
Just plain ugly
Junky
Offensive
Disgusting
Not disturbing enough
Not extreme enough
Not weird enough
Not sick enough
Fake-o psychotic
Derivative
Interesting (the worst one)

June A User experience designer picks the winners at Cannes?

In the mighty world of advertising, we have a many contests each year to pick the #winners or best work of the year. It's safe to say the Oscars of our industry is Cannes. Our agency picks a short list of what we think are the 40 best and have the whole building vote on who they think will take the top prizes. Part of the fun is seeing the work, but most of it is to see what is working out there, and keep on doing more of it. Like with any medium, notable work seeps into descriptions of new work. Such as: "We're going to do a Twelpforce, with a touch of Nike+". Like a movie pitch where they say "It's like Cloverfield meets Beaches, that sort of thing".

So here are this guys 9 picks. Since the field is more and more digital heavy, there are few big winners that just follow traditional advertising media. I think these offer the most solid user experiences, and I threw in a couple of films and print just because that isn't going away anytime soon. I suppose I could do 10 to hedge my bets, but I'll leave a wild card... Let the games begin!

1. Old Spice Responses (Weiden+Kennedy) Wins Grand Prix, etc!

Let's get this one out of the way. No contest. Why? Because it took an already winning execution and brought it into lo-fi down-and-dirty Ernie Kovacs territory. A couple of props, a towel, and a deep connection to the always-on mantra of the internet. Make a funny video about Aston Kucher and you think he won't tweet about it? Oh, save that one for later.

2. Ikea, Cats (Mother) Shoulda went with "Write the future"

I don't know why this will win, but somehow cats are fascinating to most people, and doing something with them that involves IKEA seems clever and perhaps I shouldn't say more or I'll talk myself out of this pick. I could have chosen Chrysler's Imported from Detroit since people also like Detroit, but in Cats vs Eminem I choose cats.

3. Save as WWF (Jung von Matt) Wins Gold!

I just adore this one, it's a perfect mix of technology and brand message. Really clever, perhaps it didn't really get the bang it deserved because of Mac only support, but Cannes tends to award artistic purpose over popularity.

4. Ghandji font (Leo Burnett)

Since Cannes also has a fair amount of designers, they do like fonts, and once again a perfect marriage of art and brand message.

5. Don't tell Ashton (Berghs School) Wins Bronze

Perhaps the fair amount of twitter-heavy campaign competition may overturn this one. I think the real winning aspect is the great reel they put together and the fact they are students, looking to get recognition. And they seemingly got it. Slight negative points for the final artwork, looks kinda like the million dollar homepage. Update, the rival "Pay with a tweet", won instead. I didn't care for that one since they were giving away their book anyway... oh well.

Allstate Mayhem (Leo Burnett) Won Silver

I'm kind of partial, but there are a many great 'clever/funny' TV spots on the list - the Volkswagen Star Wars, the Kevin Bacon spot, among many many others. Because this was such a stretch for the brand itself to embrace, as well as that this is a character that literally embodies the reason you choose the brand, it's my only Film pick.

6. 4th Amendment wear (Crispin?) Wins Gold!

There's something inspiring about finding a new communications medium, something that hasn't really been thought of before. This melding of metallic paint, X-Rays, social activism and underwear is just too good not to award.

7. Chrome speed tests (BBH) Won Gold

Google ads are just on a roll, they have a real fit with the brand voice. This is a favorite because of the DIY/OK GO vibe, as well as just being able to tell a fairly abstract story in a simple and visually stunning way. Their Arcade Fire music video thing is also cool and may best this one out, but since there isn't a 'brand' in that other work, other than the band, I'm picking this one. Update, they went for the Arcade fire one, oh well

8. Johnny Cash Project (Chris Milk)

Ok, so there's no 'brand' here, but we're suckers for the long, slow burn of internet ideas, we're trying to get people to slow down, relax, participate, share, you know, become friends with a brand. It takes time, and the adrenaline bursts of TV, outdoor and print are great, but internet measures time spent on site, giving up emails, sharing with friends, all that stuff takes time. So here's a slow burn of an interactive project, each person making a personal contribution. And, it's got that emotion thing. Check.

9. Decoded Bing/Jay Z (Droga 5) Wins Grand Prix!

And finally, another technical kind of campaign. Using QR codes, mobile, geolocation, gamification, jackets, all those things that everyone geeks out about this year. It supposedly had something to do with Jay-Z's book, which removes the 'emotion' thing, but we'll have to wait till next year to see a campaign that fits that element in. Perhaps something I can work on?

Feburary Do no harm design

Its true that many of the people making design decisions on the web are not designers. They are engineers, business people, students, factory workers, race-car drivers, etc. Since content is the main value proposition of the internet, how can we keep bad design decisions from obscuring their contributions? Perhaps the philosophy of "do no harm" should be applied to design. It inspired me to put together these 'rules' which, if followed, should provide a pleasing experience for all.

Color

1. Avoid it, or use sparingly.
2. Make body text off black and page background slightly off white.
3. Links should be blue only if they are in a paragraph.
4. Use colors or underlines in hover states, turn off default underlining.
5. Headers and sidebar navigation, though clickable, need not be blue.
6. Use gray whenever possible to change emphasis rather than color.

Type

1. No Arial and Helvetica, use "Lucida Sans Unicode "for Windows, and "Lucida Grande" for Mac as defaults instead.
2. Readability is enhanced by columns of text.
3. Use font stacks to try more uncommon fonts. Try Google fonts.
4. Avoid using more than one font. Use variations instead (size, color).
5. Avoid bolding text, especially headers at large font sizes.
6. Give text more space (line-height) and padding.

Image

1. Make them clickable, or make them really big.
2. If an image is not clickable or big, rethink why it is part of the design taking attention away from something actionable.

Grouping

1. Use alignment to indicate similarity. Avoid lines, bullets, backgrounds or colors to reiterate similarity.
2. Repetition of elements from one page view to another is vital to reinforcing importance of elements and introducing new ones.
3. HTML is great at enforcing semantic similarity, as well as visual. Avoid exceptions that break a rule or classes that change visual display on the same tag.

Transitions

1. Yes, please.
2. Transitions ease the introduction of elements an allows even calmer focus on the feedback from the user action.
3. Avoid auto play. Reward clicking or other interaction.
4. Don't assume all interaction is purposeful. Make recovery as easy as possible.

Input

1. Avoid correcting or pointing out error using red or other scolding color.
2. Use online help or tooltips to check each entry one by one.
3. Don't assume in a dropdown list that aphabetical is the ideal sort.
4. Assume that questions that are meaningful to the business problem may require an example.
5. Don't assume that non-required questions should be asked anyway
6. Indicate what the information will be used for.
7. Never use a cancel button.
8. Align right all submit buttons.

Feburary UX will do you some good

I was a proud participant in the first meeting of a event called UXXU - or UX for good. It took place over two days here in Chicago at the lovely new Adler School of Psychology. They recruited a rather large group of expediters, experience pros, SME's or business owners, and 'sparks' or accomplished designers that offered each group something 'out of the box' ideas. Still, it seemed like an intimate affair, something each person felt some ownership and pride of being a part of, unlike a convention.

My team numbered around 10, and certainly the first few hours of the project were spent in learning about each other, and going over the brief together. Our problem: What could we identify as an opportunity and solve in a day and a half? Our client: Global Lives who takes film shot from volunteers around the world. Their intro video is a great primer to understanding how many people live on our earth, what income distribution looks like, and how we have a hard time empathizing or even understand people across the street, no less across the world. Yet people have little interest, how to change apathy to empathy?

The team initially balked at this as an online experience, citing people's short attention span, as well as the ubiquitous nature of video as barriers to even parsing the content. Competition from entertainment, foreign films and other global media forms further confused the experience. And the unedited nature and single focus made the content suitable for art exxhibit, but what was the story that compelled someone to spend 24 hours with someone? It was clear that the constraints of incentivizing the growth of the library was a priority, as well as providing some hook for interactivity that could focus the raw footage into something digestible. Even if we got that far, moving someone from apathy to empathy seemed like a long shot.

An interview with the founder of Global lives (David Evan Harris) filled in details on the way the project came about, who potential users were, and how they benefitted from taking the time to participate. Our group extrapolated that the filmers of the biography really had the most life-altering experieince. Could we have students, filmmakers, or lay people relive the filmer's experience? Perhaps in an immersive environment like a museum, but online seemed problematic.

No matter how hard we tried, the group had difficulty framing a problem statement that could give us something to sink our teeth into brainstorming solutions. The audience seemed more or less unmotivated to interact, our potential filmmakers seemed to be too outside of a normal user group. Labeling the audience as students and teachers appeared to solve the problem of motivation, but left many of us - me included - feeling a bit unsatisfied. Even students and teachers are overworked and apathetic about seeking new ways to learn. One idea from our guest "spark" - the poet - gave some insight. The way YouTube is sparking global changes in dance, by sharing non-verbal or kinetic information, has speeded up the communication channels between very disparate cultures using movement as a common language.

Watching more of the existing video, it became clear that it was very verbal. Subtitling brought one a further step away from the engagement, since there was no particular story to tell. Condensing the content was too tricky to tackle. Not to mention that Bruce Mao's advice was to come up with something big, not to worry about budget and scale. Or in a sense, "Make no small plans, for they do not move people to change". At this point, I began to wonder if 10 participants was just too many, we seemed to have so many times where we reached dead ends. Not to mention we had a very focused client available to us, but we felt like we needed to get beyond a wireframe into something insightful, something that could move people to change, in other words a HumanKind act.

HumanKind is a framework I work with at Leo Burnett. It is a grade or a scale, 1-10, with 1 = destructive. Graduating step by step to a 5 = I understand the brand's purpose. Then elevating up to 7-8 = Changes the way people think and feel. This works quite well for print and TV, but digital has a bit of a twist. A viewer has to work through an experience to make it to those higher numbers. TV and print can sometimes go straight to 8, bypassing the earlier hurdles. With that in mind I offered the team the following framework, which I have been brainstorming on for the past month in relation to another project:

1. Notice
2. Find
3. Interact
4. Read
5. Understand
6. Share
7. Register
8. Return
9. Trust
10. Rely

The goal of this is not to aim directly at the higher numbers, but to see how you strategize methods to ease a person through each step.

1 Notice. I think of banner ads, or anything blinking that attracts attention,

2 FInd A tiny bit higer up, but similar to notice. Something may be on your mind. We can imagine the people, what's on their minds? Are they using Google, or signage, or social? Our client could also find partnerships with education and artistic sites such as learncentral.org and adobemuseum.comand a featured Google doodle.

2 Interact, they click on something, while this all takes place quickly, its a big step, someone is interested, and wants more.

4 Read - Literally to parse. You find something you are looking for, you see a picture, but there's context, from the previous steps that need to be respected. You got here for some reason, we can reward you to read and keep engaged.

5 Understand. - Understanding is seeing the component pieces (recipe) and understanding the goal of the whole piece (epicurious). Getting here is pretty imporant, how can we move on?

6 Share - Sharing is valuing, the ease of sharing has fueled the social web. Sharing has been made simpler to accomplish, but still means that someone values your content.

7 Register - The person wants to set up a relationship. The person has understood has understood your value position enough to give up anonymity. It took e-commerce a long while to overcome this step, but it means profit.

8 Return. Welcome back! A return visit is a relationship, make sure they see new things, are able to be greeted as a valued participant.

9 Trust. Through the process you have built a relationsihp, is it something where the person really thinks of you as an authority, or is the relationship all physical? You give them what they want. Trusted relationships can also be fickle, if another service provides a better value.

10 Rely - The pinnacle of online experience, It can happen quite quickly or take a long time. Its all up to the creators to make something that if it was gone, people would be pissed.

In closure, this construct helped us come up with some tactics to work with our insight that standing in the shoes of the filmaker was the most powerful place to engender empathy. The tactics worked our way through 5, which for most experiences is the best you can hope for. Moving up the ladder is a journey that is great to brainstorm about, use this or some variation on your next project and let me know if it helps.

January Thoughts on touch computing

One year or thereabouts past the introduction of the iPad, it seems safe that the term 'touch computing' has a sound footing in devices that are readily available in both the large, small, and medium sized flavor (Samsung galaxy). Contrast this to 'normal' computers and other sorts of remote controls which I supposed can be be called 'button computing' (which leaves out 'dial' computing I suppose). There's no doubt it opens opporrtunities to design new kinds of interaction.

So what did the iPad do that is truly new? I'm getting a fair amount of clues from some apps (Popplet, Flipboard, Color Splash, Twitter, Keynote) but it is clear that it is different than how you would use the smaller device, but not clear what the 'sweet spot' is for users yet. Just like the VR gloves we've seen for ages, It is truly a new input device, people can directly interact with information in a way that feels very different. And size does matter,. the extra space makes 'meta' gestures like swipe and some 3 fingered actions easier. The key to understanding the future is how to create information on these devices. Will it be to play a virtual violin on stage? Likely not.

The iPad has plenty of attraction but questionable affordance, a term Donald Norman appropriated to describe the intersection of a product and how someone percieves its use. For example: In a recent fit of carpentry, I had the desire to cut a shape out of wood. At the hardware store I was tempted to solve the problem with a new 'all-in -one tool' that could both cut shapes as well as a myriad of other tasks (as seen on TV). Alternately, there was a jigsaw, the 'traditional' tool for the task. I purchased the all-in-one tool, found it to be too hard to use, and ended up with the jigsaw.

Problematically for users, what kind of task you want to complete is a tough call. Computing in general never really purports to afford the user any particular kind of solution. Even though "People don't want a quarter inch drill, they want a quarter inch hole" says Theodore Levitt. The machine's flexibility is really the value proposition. Outside of the rather large realm of what is possible through an internet browser, we certainly can isolate word processing, data processing, and message processing tasks (email) as being well suited to a traditional computer setup (screen and keyboard). Less traditional uses such as gaming and most online activities are about selection, pointing and clicking, and take place in that oddly separate peripheral, the mouse.

Other computer tasks such as video and image editing may even have created a new peripheral, the drawing tablet, or the dedicated keyboard with more prominent buttons to emphasize the activities common to these tasks. While many people find copy/paste keyboard shortcuts easy to remember, I think its fair to characterize that dedicated buttons are a variant on a control interface of a computer and in a sense a 'hack', but an useful one for educated users. They do not usually announce themselves, so this can be considered a barrier to entry. In general custom buttons are sort of a dirty solution to user control, regard the general hatred of remote controls as evidence.

And speaking of dedicated buttons, we can include smart-phones in the discussion of computing. I'll admit a real feeling of frustration/stupidity when trying to 'unlock' a cellphone and not being able to locate the 'function' key it was so adamantly asking me to push. I had to call the phone company (on my iPhone) to find out what one that was (its in the lower left corner, oddly not mentioned in the owners manual). Which brings us to the newer world of capacitance screens and being able to merge a bit of the button pressing interface with an actual tactile interaction. Bringing it closer to how we make selections on a website, by poking at it.

As innovations go, there are certainly people that value a physical keyboard, how ever divorced it is from the full size version, for the minimum reason of being able to transfer their skill in typing to another realm. Personally, I'm waiting this year for voice activation, and computers understanding contextual multitasking through voice we saw demoed back in the 90's So, the iPhone and capacitive screens offered a slight variation on the mouse and keyboard, replacing them with virtual counterparts, Steve Jobs legendary button phobia is well earned, outside of a QUERTY keyboard, each variation in button function encourages variation among programs and general lack of learnability. The iPhone with virtual buttons and a sparser screen helps mitigate the problem, and is teaching programmers to be thoughtful in button use and placement.

Manipulating info on a small screen like the iPhone was intended to translate well to the large screen of the iPad. As of this writing i think it's more of a case that as Diddy once said, "mo' screen mo' problems."he bigger screen does allow for webpages to be displayed in a way that doesn't require an alternate design as is popular on the iphone. I noticed right away that clicking to navigate is not quite 'fun' on the iPad, and that if you are used to doing lots of selections, the iPad doesn't handle linear navigation as effortlessly as a computer screen. We are perhaps too used to multiple screens, multiple tabs and multiple open windows and the forced focus of an iPad seems like a step backward.

However there are some experiences that are quite surprising, the processing power and large screen make virtual musical instruments quite enjoyable like the aformentioned virtual violin, Korg vintage synthesizers with virtual patch cords and dials work great. Most single window interfaces are quite enjoyable on the iPad. But the innovation just arising from efforts like flipboard and twitter is what I'll call a 'sliding' interface. When you select something in a list, the chosen item then 'slides'in a new pane containing the information. This slightly covers the list, and can be slid out of the way or further slid around to highlight details. By avoiding a linear path, these interfaces start to show where innovation in how we read or consume on this new device. Unlike 'picture in picture', the real innovation is to keep context much like top or side navigation, but to overlay a new contextual layer.

And who said consumption is all that great? iPad is certainly a natural in consumption. Books, magazine and video are all delightful, and certainly the main use people will have for the device. Out of the box, there is just something sci-fi about laying a screen on your table or lap and watching a movie. The legacy of televisions being heavy cathode ray tube containing boxes has not been entirely erased from memory. Even the relative position of a laptop screen doesn't have the same wow factor as the iPad. Also the stamina of the battery and the somehow missing feature of the Kindle being able to read in the dark next to a sleeping partner, is an easy win. I also use and appreciate the computer aspect of the book reader, looking up references inline in dictionary or Wikipedia is also very futuristic and useful.

I'm a bit fearful that iPad 2 will incorporate a camera. As a photo viewer, the iPad is great, a perfect companion (with the sold-separately camera connector) on a trip. But as a large viewfinder to a tiny camera, I think it's a step in the wrong direction. It would, if rear-facing, perhaps revive the interest in augmented reality, now only being slightly resuscitated by the translator program Word Lens. So in conclusion, people will want to touch their information, layers are the way forward, and consumption is good, but to really shine, its figuring out a way to create will create change.

2010? It was a ARC/Leo Burnett production>