THE COSMONAUTS

Mark Adams, managing director of Vitsoe, states it very clear when talking about their furniture. They make furniture that’s timeless because they don’t believe in recycling, they believe in designing adaptive systems that can be rearranged over time to suit different needs and scenarios.

the concept is to reuse your furniture…we see recycling as a defeat

Modularity and no-aesthetics as design is my big obsession when designing interactive products (mostly websites). It’s not about designing a good website, it’s about designing a system of elements that can be arranged in certain ways and that can fulfill the company needs over time and for different reasons. If done well, when there is a need for some module that’s not designed, its shape, look and behavior comes out of intuition, it’s evident. My goal is to leave something in the hands of my client that will be there in 4 years, probably rearranged, perhaps with more pieces but within the same system.

When I fist read the Ten Principles for Good Design (that was back in 2004) I was shocked. It was like a revelation that made reconsider all I knew about information architecture and HCI. Here are the ones that hit me harder:

4. Good Design helps a product be understood
6. Good Design is honest
7. Good Design is durable
10. Good Design is as little design as possible

In Dieter Rams’ words: less but better.

Los Angeles Times reports that Rupert Murdoch plans on launching a newspaper for the iPad and the like only. Freshly designed. Both content and form from scratch.

I’d sell my soul to Lucifer to be on that team.

In some of my recent talks I’ve mentioned the story behind USA Today. I think it’s one of the best examples to learn about information consumption and adaptation.

USA Today launched almost 30 years ago built on a premise: that most Americans didn’t read, that they mostly got news from television (color television) and that they spent a lot of time in front of the tube.

Al Neuharth, USA Today’s founder, understood the new context and decided to design a newspaper from scratch, one based on these premises where:

• there was color all over (for pictures, for sections) just like on TV
• photos drove the stories and not the opposite
• articles were short
• news didn’t need a follow-up, there was no incremental coverage

This was the result, the fresh design of the USA Today in 1982:

And here is what the New York Times looked like in the early 80′s (see how big the change was?):

In short, USA Today wasn’t targeted to newspaper readers but to TV watchers. The critics called it the McPaper, the junk news, the fast food of information. But despite that they ended up being the most read paper in the USA. They understood their new readers and the new context. They won.

And that is why most old newspapers redesign for the internet or for the ipad and they fail miserably. Why? They don’t pay attention to new users and their new contexts of use.

The difference between product design and architecture is in human scale and that has to do with political power.

There is something subduing in the creation of structures we humans inhabit or use in any way, something about those structures condioning our moves and behaviors. Architecture and (even more) urbanism have that powerful quality.

Architects project their structures to influence in the way we feel and behave. They manage flows of people, they regulate our exposition to daylight to condition our feelings or they make us feel free and empowered through space and height. They make structures that manipulate us.

Architecture and urbanism could be the use of power though means of space. That could explain why politicians have always flirted with architecture, and dictators love to have scale models of their dreamt cities.

Designers instead, have never been that interesting for the powerful (with some interesting exceptions). Their work is usually not that influencing. Designers make things that tend to be smaller than humans. Their structures may condition but don’t force us to do anything. It’s not the space which conditions the individual but the individual who manipulates the object.

I made a personal update to the Schematic Chart of Ideological and Design Changes from the 60s to the 80s by Massimo Vignelli. I decided to add a column named “internet times” suggesting that the internet is bringing a set of values to the way we understand creation, specifically designing and more specifically designing for the internet.

Mine is a personal interpretation of what that fourth column should be, if there should be a fourth column. I encourage you to make your interpretation too, filling the blanks with what you consider more appropiate. I’m sure there will be some common points.

Here is the original Schematic Chart of Ideological and Design Changes from the 60s to the 80s by Vignelli:

And here’s my interpretation. It’s a Fireworks PNG file for your editing convenience:

Now come and do yours, or at least help me out with rows 1 and 3.

I deeply believe that honesty and beauty are two of the most important values in design. We put as much as we could in the redesign of the Search Results page of Minube for flights and hotels and the result has been good. Here it is:

Our assumptions

We (both minube and us) put extreme attention to what information mattered the most and made it stand above the secondary data. These were our main assumptions:

• Price matters most than company.
• Price (usually) matters most than hours.
• There is the cheapest and then the rest.
• Airlines are better recognized by their logos/colors than by their names.
• Some things don’t need to be a in a filter: price ranges, airline, websites searched, etc.
• Those with flexible dates need a different way to look at it.
• It’s easier to redo the search than to refine through ajax.
• Flight and flight back are consecutive, so let’s show them consecutive.
• It’s likely that your choice will be among the first 10 results (although you may want to see more).
• White space helps people identify choices, it makes everything clearer.
• Boxes help you separate between different types of content.
• It’s better to show just the essential data.

Old and new versions side to side

Minube is always quesioning how they do things and how these things can be improved. I like to say that at Vostok we are not good at innovating but at improving. The old version was good. But good as it was it could be, and should be improved. Here you have both versions side to side:

Facts prove it

We know the new one is more beautiful and more honest. Facts prove it. Raúl (Minube’s CEO) told me about the A/B Test results and the main indicators doubled in the new one. You should check Raúl’s post in Spanish about it.

We both believe

It’s a great thing we have clients who share our believes. Working with minube is always of great pleasure. We have a relationship based on trust and shared values. They also think that beauty and honesty are two of most important principles of good design.

These past few days have been rather depressing. We feel this way for two reasons:

1. We live in an online world that needs a plug-in like Readability to make it bearable.
2. A divisive but exciting conversation thread powered by iA Oliver Reichenstein‘s image titled “3-5 words per line, just to make it look like paper? No NYT, this is NOT how it’s done”. Well done!

Readability (the service)

Readability, which you probably already know, is a free button for your Web browser’s toolbar that eliminates everything from the Web page you’re reading except the text and photos. You can get the button at the arc90 website. The idea is great. Nobody has said it better than NYT’s David Pogue:

Readability makes the world online a calmer, cleaner, more beautiful place.

But shouldn’t this make us happy? Well, let’s just say that we couldn’t agree more with yewknee‘s view on Ryan Catbird’s tumblr:

Very cool, excellent product, but I can’t help but think of how fucked up it is that this thing even needs to exist. Because here’s a novel idea: Hey Publishers: How about you just stop putting shit all over every single pixel on the screen?

Read the entire comment here.

Here’s a peek of how Readability works using an article from the NYT  Young Americans Embrace Rigors of the Bolshoi (and this newspaper is far from being the most cluttered one out there):

Before Readability

After Readability

So what has Readability done?

• kept the photo that illustrated the article
• got rid of all the mess surrounding it
• changed column width
• increased interspacing

So simple! And now you can even change your settings so that you can see links as footnotes. Here’s a demo in video:

All in all the design blogosphere has been kind of hectic recently. Perhaps the iPad has something to do with this. Javier Cañada (@javiercanada) tweeted a few days ago:

iPad means extreme segregation between good and bad designers. Those who don’t embrace true simplicity will fail miserably.

A great conversation on information design…

… taking place on the less expected place: flickr. This interesting discussion on information design and presenting online content had input from Khoi Vinh, Lukas Mathis, Wired Magazine, Adobe and Hoefler+Frere-Jones where the following topics were discussed:

• legibility Vs. ‘a look’
• replicating print
• scrolling Vs. screen to screen
• eye-scanning
• columns

iA has a great image in their Wired app article showing what a mess columns can actually be (look at all the zig-zagging going on):

Even though we’ve grown accustomed to reading this way, it doesn’t mean it’s the best way. It’d be kind of sad to realize that we arrived to the best solution back in the 1600′s.

A few days ago we read this tweet from @Gatada :

If you combine Readability with Instapaper you’re all set; enjoyable reading by your desk and on the move! + Don’t forget Dropbox for files.

He’s right. But we hate to conform.

Here’s Vostok’s take on the matter: a list of things that should ALWAYS be taken into account when thinking about online design:

are you mimicking print? why? if nostalgia is the answer: forget it.

are you drawing a clear distinction between ads and content?

are you taking care of line spacing and line length? what works best for what medium?

are you using columns? why? and how?

are you understanding and respecting the medium you are designing for? are you making the most out of its possibilities?

are you trying to fit the same amount of content of a 22-inch broadsheet into a 9-inch iPad screen?

Yeah, these are the ones for us. Are there any others we’ve missed out?

I ask you to go back to the 40′s. Try to portray families in the living room, around a big wooden radio listening to national broadcasts over SW and AM… Can you see it? It was old time radio. See Daddy with his pipe, granma and the kids all listening to daytime serials, soap operas, quiz shows…

It all changed dramatically in the 50′s when the transistor was invented. Technologically it allowed for smaller and cheaper radios. It was no longer one radio per family, neither one radio in the center of the house. It meant that content wasn’t shared anymore. Content was moved to the bedroom and to the car thus alloing new forms of entertainment: late night shows where people would call to air their confessions, and music in the cars. Youngsters could have their own radio. Rock’n'Roll was then on the streets.

The iPad could be the same catalyzer today.

The iPad as a transistor

Today I read this quote on how the managers of Hulu think it makes sense to move it to the iPad:

Typically media consumption in the house was confined to the living room or home office, tablets allow consumers to serendipitously discover and consume media in every room of the house.

Jason Kilar (hulu) at The New York Times

Don’t you see parallelisms? Traditional visual media (shows, movies, series) has always been something that was consumed socially. All we wanted was good content and both the biggest scren and the biggest couch we could afford on our living room. Laptops are ok for that but still they have a design that’s optimised for work (big keyboard+trackpad, short battery span, a complex UI and OS…).

The iPad could be the transistor for the new media. It could bring consumption of narrative media (especially audiovisual content) everywhere: to the very private sphere and to the streets, allowing for new forms of consumption.

Augmented reality, yes but also… Augmented fiction!

Imagine being on a vacation in Barcelona, stopping for a café at a terraza in a cal square at the Born while watching movie scenes that happened right there, on the streets you just walked. That’s not augmented reality but augmented fiction. Same goes for long train or plane trips (movies about hijacked planes, love stories on the train? Thousands!). Nothing impossible these days, we only need a comfortable device and an app that takes care of it.

That would also be possible for cheap productions, not just big movies. If I owned a hotel and had to make a promotional video about it I’d make a short fiction film instead where the barman, concierge and all the staff are part of a cool story wich at the same time informs the customers about all the hotel facilities. I would make it available on the internet, of course, but also for customers who are already there with their tablets. I woud even put that in context with the surroundings and the nearby attractions if it was a touristic destination, so it was informative to visitors. That’s geolocalisation mixed with amateur cinema mixed with portable media devices.

Private realities

Now think of private spaces, specifically your bedroom. Transistor radios favored programs where people would call to talk about their love problems, to complain about their jobs, to make anonymous confessions. Could a iPad-like device be good at that? Could it be better than a laptop? Perhaps, if we put a camera on it.

I see the iPad as the best videoconference tool ever (if it ever comes with a camera). And now I’m thinking of chatroulette. Not the best example but maybe a good starting point if someone ever comes up with an app that has different mood or themed chatrooms where you can have *real* conversations with *normal people* (not just perverts, or piano dudes).

I’m also thinking as videodiaries, private ones, just like the one Jake Sully had on Avatar. Wouldn’t you love to see yourself 10 years in te past talking about your life back then in a decent video quality? I’d love to do that right now if I had the right tool and could do it on the spot, not just in front of a computer that needed a surface to stand.

Yes, you can do all this that I mention with a laptop or even an iPhone but they are not optimised for that. The iPhone is not good for video and carrying a laptop while traveling and opening it in the middle of the street doesn’t sould like leisure. And… welll.. I know that the first models of the iPad won’t have camera or GPS but you get the point, right?

New audiences

The transistor made radios cheap and affordable. One family, one radio was no longer valid. Now the kid could have his transistor and go out with friends to listen to music. Radio stations saw the opportunity and started to air that new music the youth were listening. Not orchestras or big bands but Rock an Roll.

The iPad will be to our parents what the transistor radio was to the 50′s youth. They now barely use the computer and are unable to take full advantage of it. Websites are not designed for them, too crammed with lots of info and buttons. Operating systems are also a nightmare for those over 50 years old.

The iPad (or any tablet where file system and OS are invisible) will make a difference for these audiences. I’m not saying anything new here, you know… “the iPad will be the perfect computer for my mom” it has been said a thousand times already. But…

I see an oportunity for content to be tailored to these audiences. There is no media for them on the web right now. Studios make movies and shows for their audience and that’s people from 15 to 45 the most. Would that change if we had 10 milion elders ready to watch movies? All the classic movies would be available for them easily. Someone would make that move. Also new fiction could be made. Videoconference would be easy for them: no window resizing, no other programs on the background that would pop and overlap confusing them… Just contacts and a call button. Grandpa could call my son from everywhere, be that his favorite armchair or in the middle of a country walk when he sees that beautiful flower they were painting days ago and wants to show it to his grandson right away.

The transistor brought true mobility for old media and morphed it into something completely different. This new device, be it the iPad or whatever similar, allows for completely new scenarios too. The most exciting thing about it is that none of them is science fiction. It’s all completely available, it only needs some work from our side, which is what I’m about to do right now.

I think of UCD (User-Centered Design) a little as I think of Christianism. The fact I’m an atheist today does not stop me from recognizing that some Christian values have shaped my worldview and my belief system in very positive ways.

César Astudillo

Ariel Guersenzvaig, who knows me well and understands my take on user-centered design, refered me to Apple’s Secret? It Tells Us What We Should Love, an article that questions UCD as a tool for radical innovation. I’ve been moving from true believer in UCD to these positions over time and, although I think it’s easy to use Apple as an example, I consider this article by Roberto Verganti full of true statements:

User-centered innovation is perfect to drive incremental innovation, but hardly generates breakthroughs. In fact, it does not question existing needs, but rather reinforces them, thanks to its powerful methods.

Firms that create radical innovations make proposals. They put forward a vision. In doing that, of course, they take greater risks.

Thanks to this process these companies are serial radical innovators. Their non-user-centered proposals are not dreams without a foundation. Sometimes they fail. But when they work, people love them even more than products that have been developed by scrutinizing their needs.

User centered-design (observation, interviews, user testing, etc. ) is for those who want to improve something existing, not for those who want to create something new. Those need to understand human nature but don’t need to microscope every little behavior and take it as a starting point.

Designing Design – Kenya Hara — The Designer’s Review of Books

Kanya Hara, art director of Muji, explains Japanese design taking knives as an example:

Japanese cooks who have special skills prefer knives without any ergonomic shape. A flat handle is not seen as raw or poorly crafted. On the contrary, its perfect plainness is meant to say, “You can use me whichever way suits your skills.” The Japanese knife adapts to the cook’s skill (not to the cook’s thumb). This is, in a nutshell, Japanese simplicity.

The piece, translated by Oliver Reichenstein is also part of a larger article about Japanese aesthetics published at the NYTimes under the title Beauty and the Bento Box where also John Maeda, Nick Currie and Denis Dutton go through the subject.

Worth reading.

A few quotes on design by our admired Massimo Vignelli:

I don’t think that type should be expressive at all. I can write the word ‘dog’ with any typeface and it doesn’t have to look like a dog. But there are people that [think that] when they write ‘dog’ it should bark.

Creativity needs the support of knowledge to be able to perform at its best.

There are no hierarchies when it comes to quality. Quality is there or is not there, and if is not there we have lost our time.

Any color works if you push it to the extreme.

There is no design without discipline, there is no discipline without intelligence.

We detest the demand of temporary solutions, the waste of energies and capital for the sake of novelty.

I like design to be semantically correct, syntactically consistent, pragmatically understandable.

I like it to be visually powerful, intellectually elegant, and above all timeless.

It’s not important to develop your own style but your own approach.

And finally a couple of videos of him, one explaining his hated/admired NYC Subway map of 1972 and the second one on his appearance on Helvetica (with Spanish subtitles):

This video just sums up to my obsession about form, figure and background in interterface design. Check it out, it’s plain amazing:

(via Ilustrae)

Taken from FastCompany’s Design Is a Point of View: Seven Truths in Designing by Breitt Lovelady:

3. EMPOWER individual creativity. We’ve all heard the term “design by committee” or possibly the old maxim that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. And I strongly agree. It’s very difficult to create groupthink around multiple points of view. It’s great to voice them, collect them and prioritize them, but to avoid camels, I recommend empowering one ultimate individual you trust to become the director and keeper of the vision. Empowering individual creativity also ensures a higher level of passion, focus, commitment and ownership for the results.

5. DESIGN is not a democracy. Democracies are fine, mainly for collecting diverse input. But they can kill design. Often too many opinions water down the clarity of the design intent. I’ve had many clients where there are way too many brilliant people involved in programs. They find it their duty to provide all the alternative solutions or insights to every program–always broadening the thinking–instead of focusing on decision-making. If not for the benevolent dictatorship of the program director in these programs, they would never reach the goal. Design requires focused leadership, not democratic consensus.

Lately I have seen what I consider a trend among design consultancies. Many of them jump in the wagon of selling their process (the “how”) and not their result (the “what”). The keywords could go like this:

Design strategy, post-it notes, ethnography, cocreation, design thinking, iteration, methodology, big boards, flowcharts, innovation, moodcharts, multidisciplinary, cardboard prototyping, deliverables, ideas, process.

instead of…

Portfolio. Results. Ratios. Agile. Deliver. Design. Product.

Sounds to me like a late echo of what we used to hear from IDEO back in the late nineties. It was amazing to most of us: new and interesting methodologies for designing smart products. You could be a sociologist and end up designing cool sunglasses or high-tech medical equipment. What a promise… huh? Apparently many design consultancies (and I say “consultancies” with a bit of sarcasm) kept the methodology part but forgot about the delivery/product part.

I am not saying that methodology, etnography and all that doesn´t matter. It does. We do so at Vostok (sometimes, only if necessary). What I am trying to say is that it’s the result that matters, not the methods, not the concepts. It’s the product of your work, not the work itself. Show me what you’ve done, not how you do it.

All the crafty wadus-wadus is cool, the fancy videos, the whiteboards, the multidisciplinary meetings in rooms with pencils, paper and all… But that doesn’t make you a designer. It’s the product that makes you a designer. And if the result is good (both for client and user) who cares about how you got there… It’s not what you say what matters, not what you blog or what you tweet, not what you report or what you put on a 99 slide powerpoint. It’s what you do, what you finally create what matters.

I’ve spent most of my time to study the basic shapes, this in order to focus on those meaningful details which give meaning to those qualities we live our daily lives with and —somehow— help define ourselves too.

The Context of Form is a short (therefore very good) essay by De Gregorio on how form can be function. Please, read it.

We like the definition of the game as “free movement on a rigid structure”. The more rules the game has, the funnier it is. These limitations -or explicit rules- encourage the creation of other implicit ones: for instance we now have groups of users setting the topic of the day and postng videos on that topic. That is much funnier and exciting than a user posting all the videos from his favorite band in a single day.

Alberto Romero on designing unvlog.com (Spanish)

Make sure to check Dorothy Silva’s post on the concept of Facerank. It’s pretty illustrative.

It left me thinking about its application to an online service of say… dating. Most of todays online dating websites are based on browsing or searching. In fact it’s a combination of the two, since it’s some sort of filtering (gender, age, location, etc.). But no one, or at least no one that I know, has implemented an online dating system based on recommendations: “Javier, I know you so much I bet this girl is definitely a good match for you”.

I am sooo thinking about it these days.
This will be Vostok‘s next project.
Yeah!

I would say that Agustin Jiménez‘s was the best talk we had at our recent “Desconferencia” (a gathering of professionals where everybody gives a small presentation).

He enlightened us on the convergence point between interaction design and biotechnology. The main point was that biological systems are being created with more and more levels of abstraction and that one day in the near future designers will be needed to determine how these systems will be used by people. The fact that DNA sequences and machine code have a very similar structure (I am simplifying here, I know) leads to the building of new levels of abstraction just as we did on machine code, making it possible to design biosystems that have sensory interfaces a person could interact with:

Have you ever think about a cell as a machine?. They really behave like it whether they are yeast or pluripotent cells in your bone marrow. In fact, as Drew Endy define them, they act as computational systems. They receive inputs, and behave accordingly as outputs. Cells have measurements tools, priorities to satisfy and self awareness of different kinds.

As interaction designers we can apply all the inherited knowledge in our discipline to new horizons like biotech. It’s just a new framework with new variables.

Agustín Jiménez is an interaction designer who always has one foot at the side of technology and another one on the biomedical edge. His post on the talk: Biotechnology and Interaction Design is worth a relaxed reading.

A few days ago I posted something about defining interaction design. Luis Villa replied with a comment that is one hundred times better than the original post. I don’t have his explicit permission to make a post out of it but since he made it public I assume I can. Here it goes:

Sometimes I see patterns…

Information Architecture: how it’s structured
Interaction Design: how it behaves
Information Design/Visual Design: how it looks

Front end
XHTML – How is structured
JS – How it behaves
CSS – How it looks

Backend
Model – Data and structure
Controller – Behaviour
View – the look, the skin of the system

Restaurant (I don’t know if I’m kidding here…)
Kitchen: data, ingredients, structure…
Waiter: behaviour, orders
Table: presentation, look

From my humble point of view, all of these layers in any of the domains (conceptual, logical, physical) has a lot to do with design. Maybe I live in a special place sorrounded by programmers and developers who act_as_designers ;-)

As a pattern, we’ve got three layers: a fundation, an intermediary which routes actions betwwen surface and fundation and a surface, the part that the user thinks is the system (because, from the user’s perspective, behind the surface there’s magic).

I’m not a philosopher, maybe I’m saying stupid things.

Luis Villa