Full disclosure: I ♥ Dolce & Gabbana and I am going to be unabashedly biased towards anything that has a D&G tag on it.

Here are a few facts:

• For those of you who have not heard about Dolce & Gabbana, it is one of the biggest (and one of the best IMO) luxury fashion houses of the world and is based in Milan.
• Sony Ericsson has collaborated with D&G and released a limited edition of their phone called Jalou. The name of the phone is derived from a french word jaloux which means jealousy!
• The D&G edition is plated with 24 carat gold and is faded-rose in color. There are other colors but they are do not carry the D&G tag on them.
• The retail price of the phone is $800 and the price of the D&G edition is undisclosed. D&G is known for it’s notriously high pricing especially since it’s a luxury brand.

Since we have been reading some fashion texts and trying to apply that to interaction design, I thought this was a particularly interesting artifact to talk about. We have talked so much about a phone like the iPhone where owning the latest tehcnology is fashion. So I was wondering how does it work when it comes to something like the Jalou. Clearly it cannot be discarded as “advertising” and “branding”. It gets even more interesting when you compare the advertisements of the same phone – one made by Sony Ericsson and the other by D&G.

Thoughts/comments?

Dolce & Gabbana

Sony Ericsson

http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/4e05a0ac

For those of you who caught my Ignite TO presentation, here are the slides. For those of you who missed it, below is a text summary that goes with the slides.

I’d like to give thanks to my teacher and friend, Dr. Karen Anderson, whose scholarly work underpins many of the ideas in this presentation.

Slide 1:

This presentation about is the self, that it is a social phenomenon not a biological one. Most theories of the self don’t give us a social angle but only a biological one. This has an impact for technology design.

Slide 2:The self is an uniquely human phenomenon. It is the internal private reality of the consciousness. It is not anatomical or physiological. It is not a body.It is only meaningful in social situations.

Slide 3: So we have this internal, private reality, this consciousness. Biological paradigms to explain it are inadequate. Bodies are the containers of selves, not the actual self. Containers matter. But they are not the only thing that matters.

Slide 4: Victor, was a “feral child” found in France. He would not wear clothes. Or Use a bed. He farted. He did not have a social self, but a biological one.His body functioned; his self did not.

Slide 5: HAL 9000 has a self. He is socially competent. Aware of his inner reality. He imagined that Dave and Frank were plotting against him. Victor had no inner reality but HAL did.  HAL understood the social.

Slide 6: All too often we think of the self as a piece of hardware, or an emotion chip. Unfortunately, most of our ideas about the self are really about our hardware.

Slide 7: For example, Sigmund Freud. Freud thought biological experiences created the self. In the form of ego and the superego. We learn about our anus and develop a self, but this doesn’t explain Victor or HAL’s development.

Slide 8: Even psychologist Piaget put biology first. Piaget’s theory of child development relies on sensory experiences. Not social experiences. For Piaget, learning starts with a bodily interaction, not social interaction.

Slide 9: Yet socially successful human beings must master the meaning of symbols. Symbols have fine nuances, depending on the context. Hand gestures are anatomically similar but mean different things at different times, in different places.

Slide 10: Social interaction is built upon symbols, not biological impulses. We are aware of our internal realities by interpreting social symbols. The degree of force in a gesture matters. Who gives it matters.

Slide 11: We interpret symbols, not react to them. We are not Pavlovian dogs who salivate at the sound of a bell. We are not somatically driven beings, but socially driven beings. Our bodies have influence over us but they are not the self.

Slide 12: George Herbert Mead offers us a theory of a social self. The “I” is what Victor has: a purely instinctual consciousness. The “me” is created through social interaction. “I should sit on a chair; it’s more socially appropriate.”

Slide 13: The “generalized other” is when we realize there is a whole world out there. That we then internalize into our own private reality. We begin to imagine what “others” might say about our actions. Our self imagines what other selves think of it.

Slide 14: Often we design technology to be USABLE, not to be SOCIAL. We don’t enable social selves to use technology without an awkwardness, or embarrassment.

Slide 15:  Google Street View. This technology has created a few embarrassing moments. Google’s face blurring does not solve our embarrassment of interpreting this image. Street View is functional, not social.

Slide 16: Facebook continually fails to sense what selves need. This self posted a picture of himself smoking. Unfortunately, his mom recognized the room. This is embarrassing.

Slide 17: If we design for selves, not bodies, we think of everyone’s internal private realities. Bodies need ergonomics, usability, accessibility. Selves need to be shielded from embarrassment, awkward situations, and social breaches.

Slide 18: Technology designed for bodies is like an awkward dinner party. The technology we design should provide a consistent, social lubricant. We must design technology like we design great parties. Where the right people sit in the right seats.

Slide 19: Socially meaningful symbols must be present. This can be discovered through contextual inquiry, Selves also require the ability to control their presentation to others. And finally, the social “place” of technology must be clearly demarcated.

Slide 20: In the end, we design our world for selves. Technology designed for bodies just gets in the way. If technology is designed for bodies, selves change to meet the needs of technology.

I would prefer that have technology adapt to selves.

Thank you

Art is Open Source and FakePress just released Zones, a simple harmonic granular synthesizer for the iPhone. Create relaxing soundscapes and ephemeral melodies by creating grains with your fingers. Grains interact with each other establishing a musical force field. Best heard in headphones.

Zones, iPhone granular synthesis at your fingertips

find out about it here:

Zones, simple harmonic granular synthesizer

or download it directly on iTunes

Zones is released for free with a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License and the full sourcecode is available.

I came across this video about a relatively new high-tech oriental restaurant located in London. Even though the restaurant is not using multi-touch technology, I think that their interaction is more down-to-earth and useful than the applications shown in the cheesy (and degrading) Microsoft Surface ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2R24CfeZoY) .  The concept seems to be quite simple: the video is projected on each table by an overhead projector.  Customers interact with the application using a touchpad so there is no need for the whole table’s surface to be touchable.

What I found particular interesting is that the designers thought about several ways to customize the customers’ experience such as allowing them to choose the virtual tablecloth and to have each entrée being displayed right unto your dish as opposed of just seeing the pictures on the menu.  Additionally, while their waiting for the food, customers can play digital games, get info about tourist places nearby, order a taxi, and even see (via video stream) how the chef is preparing their food.

Also, the interaction seems to be very intuitive: other videos located in the restaurant’s website show first-time costumers and kids interacting with the applications without any problems.

A multi-touch solution would have been quite expensive for a small restaurant so I think that it is really creative how the owners of this particular restaurant explored other alternatives and came out with an interaction that might have even surpassed the success of implementing a much more expensive and sophisticated solution (such as Microsoft Surface).

Da qualche mese mi frulla in testa la possibilità di inserire nel team di User Experience anche un front-end developer che si occupa di realizzare prototipi funzionali in vero XHTM/CSS in modo da utilizzare la base per il vero sviluppo.

Questa scelta ha delle ripercussioni economiche sul budget del dipartimento. Potrebbe allungare i tempi di realizzazione dei prototipi, anche se sarebbero recuperati in fase di sviluppo. Purtroppo il prototipo spesso serve in tempi più rapidi in quanto lo usiamo anche come documento che il Cliente deve approvare e non solo come parte del progetto da consegnare agli sviluppatori per il coding.

Oggi consiglio vivamente l’utilizzo di Axure RP a chiunque voglia affrontare la realizzazione di prototipi. E’ uno strumento potete e veloce. Abbiamo sviluppato una serie di “componenti” che simulano interazioni avanzate per dare il senso reale dell’attività che una persona svolge. Axure ha un suo sistema interno per generare e far funzionare questi widget. Ecco qualche esempio.

Insomma, la mia idea di creare dei prototipi XHTML/CSS validi si stava dilatando perché sarei stato costretto a lavorare a colpi di jQuery e DOM Scripting per raggiungere gli stessi risultati. Poi ho trovato IxEdit.

Un video è meglio di tante parole. Ecco come IxEdit potrebbe aiutarmi a realizzare prototipi in codice valido mantenendo la possibilità di realizzare rapidamente alcune interazioni. Senza scrivere codice.

L’ho scaricato. Devo studiarlo meglio.

So, some of you seem interested in semiotic approaches, but also are uncertain as to how to pursue one. For example, Yujia writes in her blog post,

I don’t see how camera angle, depth of the field and montage can be applied to interaction

More generally, Yujia writes that she is not quite sure how to use some of the semiotics readings to do her own. I suspect that she is not alone in this, and so what I want to do in this post is maybe shed some light on how you can use those papers as models for your own thinking. I’ll start with Yujia’s point about some of the film theory.

Those aspects of film she mentions all have an effect on the way (or style with which) reality is presented. A low camera angle (looking up at the actor) magnifies the actor, making her or him look bigger, more imposing; a high camera angle likewise diminishes the actor. Thus, decisions like that establish a relationship between the audience and the actor–of superiority or inferiority, in the case of vertical camera angle.

How do interactions present reality? How do they structure users’ relationships with their reality? What paradigmatic alternatives could have been chosen that were not? (Example: every shot of an actor must have a camera angle; there is no such thing as no camera angle at all. But among all the possible camera angles–close, far, low, high, etc.–that could have been chosen, why was that one chosen for that shot?)

Notice what I am doing here. I am not trying to directly apply a concept from film semiotics to interaction in a literal way (though I would say that you can apply some film theory directly to interaction in the case of cinematic interactions, e.g., contemporary video games). Instead, what I am doing is asking, “what does this semiotic theory actually do for film?” Then I ask, “what could fill the same kind of role for interaction”? Thus, instead of trying to apply camera angle or depth of field to interaction, instead I ask, “given that camera angle and depth of field get at issues of ways that cinema presents reality in certain ways to viewers, how do interactions present reality to users, and what are the techniques and options interaction designers use to present reality in certain ways?”

We can apply a similar approach to other readings.

Let’s look at Entwistle’s power dressing paper, which looks at ways that clothes are enmeshed in discourses that construct subject-positions for people who wear them. If a woman wears a feminine uniform, she is constructed as a “laborer” with no upward mobility. If she wears a power suit, she is constructed as a “professional” and even an “entrepreneur.” (We talked about this in class last week.)

How might that apply to interaction? Well, what are the ways that interactions construct subject-positions for people to inhabit? Example: OneStart and Oncourse look different for students and faculty. What views, data sets, and operators are available to faculty but not students? And vice-versa? How are these two types of users constructed as subjects by the system? To what extent do these discursive constructions align with the empirical reality/needs of actual users (to rephrase: what is the difference between Oncourse users-as-addressees and Oncourse users-as-recipients)?

Another example.

In the resume cover letter example we talked about weeks ago, the phatic relationship between addresser and addressee was one of polite, formal submission. The addressee was constructed in a position of power–to decide who gets a valuable resource (the job)–and the addresser is constructed as a candidate seeking both the job itself, and more immediately, the approval and interest of the addressee. The point here is that the cover letter establishes a phatic relationship between addresser and addressee that is inscribed with a power relation.

Can you think of a software application that just by using it puts people in phatic power relations? I can imagine, for example, project management software differentially empowers managers and employees. I can imagine even a calendar application in which some types/classes of users publicly post their entire calendars for all colleagues to see, while other classes of users do not, and the latter class signs themselves up for meetings with those whose calendars are always available. There is a surveillance aspect to such calendars, and while one person (the latter) is always able to take the action of signing up to meet the other (the former, whose calendar is always posted online), the former cannot sign up to meet with the latter, because the latter’s calendar is not available to view!

So these are some examples I just made up. The point is that I encourage you to abstract a little from your readings in order to apply them to interaction; don’t try to apply them directly. Instead, ask the question, what does the semiotic approach get for a film/fashion critic, and then seek to get that same thing for yourself for an interaction.

My client is a well known brand in the digital arena, the product suite is centred around a high volume of transaction. I am looking for an interim director of user experience to help lead the team across innovation, usability, information architecture, search and design until the right hire has been made. I am looking for someone with experience of managing large teams and drive and inspire them on a day to day basis. You will also be a hands-on user experience practitioner and be prepared to get your hands dirty and sleeves rolled up for senior level stakeholder engagement. You need to have at least 10 years of working in a business to consumer (B2C) environment and a thorough understanding of user research, user experience, creative design, and client-side development. This product is driven by multiple users and information that allows people to make decisions quickly. Please get in touch for more information – this role doesn’t have a ceiling on the rate, as this role will only suit very senior practitioners and leaders working for a big consumer brand for many years.

This role is to start asap.

Be Kaler Blake

0207 420 3539

be@wearefutureheads.co.uk

or Gill Arnold

0207 4203538

gill@wearefutureheads.co.uk

I read Dell Hymes’ Obit today.

What strikes me about his approach to Linguistics was that it was all about context. Language took place in a cultural context, not in a mathematical wonderland, as Chomsky would have you believe.

Not to harsh on Noam, or anything.

But the word ecumenical came up in the obit…meaning general in extent or application.

Merriam-Webster tells us it comes from the Greek oikoumenē ,meaning the inhabited world.

The first step to solving a problem is to look at where it happens. To go where the problem is. Have Empathy, as @whitneyhess said here. And using an ecumenical approach, use whatever tools you need.

Hi! This is my blog about my work done as an Interaction Designer in IDC, IIT Bombay. You can find here my updated portfolio and resume.

I’m trying to choose an appropriate amount of interaction to choose for the  paper.  I think I want to work with something from the New Super Mario Bros for Wii since I’ve been playing it so much as it is, but I’m not sure what part of the interaction to talk about.  I like the idea of tackling the difference between playing with one player and two players or comparing the interaction to a much older version of the Super Mario Bros saga (Super Mario 1 or 3 for NES).  I’m not sure if such a comparison is appropriate or if that is tackling too much.

I’m also concerned about what part of the interaction to take on.  Do I look at a  level or maybe a world?  Or do I focus on something really small like using what James terms the “whirly-bird helmets”?

"Whirly-bird helmet"

My back up to this choice is working with text messaging on an iPhone.

I wouldn’t normally put job ads here, but this one’s urgent. If you’re interested drop me a line asap.

Role: Senior UX Consultant / Interaction Designer

Duties to include:
1. User research & analysis (interviewing users, preparing protocols, analyzing results, etc.)
2. Concept ideation (storyboarding, brainstorming, sketching design ideas and screen flows, etc.)
3. Wireframing (detailed interaction design and prototyping, ideally using Axure)

Skills & Experience:
• 5+ years in user experience consulting / interaction design
• Extensive experience in interaction design and wireframing (ideally using Axure)
• Skilled and knowledgeable in concept ideation and human-centred design
• Understanding and competence in user research, analysis and modelling
• Advanced degree or equivalent in information architecture, interaction design, HCI, Human Factors, or related field
• Ideally experience or knowledge of designing for search and information discovery applications

Location of work: Richmond (London), with occasional field work or travel to client site

Rate: Good

Start Date: early December (before Dec 7)

End Date: TBD, likely end of Jan

Please send CVs asap to trose AT endeca.com.

In class Jeff was talking about how self is defined by the discourse and that there is no “puppeteer” real version of self that exists inside of us.

Wow.

I know Semiotics is not supposed to be looked at like religion and its a tool and it has holes, but I’m loving it. Call bullshit if you want, but think about how that changes everything when we design. I mean look at how we use personnas or scenarios. We build these tools up to work with a given circumstance. The specific ones are typically the ones that help us the most.

My question is about concurrent discourses (think ubiquitous computing or group interaction). Jeff used the example that he acts differently around his mother than other situations. We act a certain way given the context, but what about overlapping contexts. What about when you’re married to a co-worker. Or drinking with a professor. Is this a whole new discourse, or would you consider that a combination of discourses, and if so what changes?

I may be way off here, but before I was only thinking about a single discourse. That makes sense. But when we have a lot going on (as we often do) what does that mean for semiotics?

My client is looking for an information architect to start asap for a few weeks. If functional complexity in an AJAX environment is what you like and you have experience of working within the travel industry, please get in touch. You will work alongside another information architect and need to be confident collaborating with tech and creative teams to optimise detailed user journeys and booking process documentation.

Drop me a line if you are interested – be@wearefutureheads.co.uk

Why We Play Games
Abstract: Nicole Lazzaro, President

XEODesign’s study on why people played games revealed that it’s for the experience, both physical and emotional, rather than the game content itself. They came up with four reasons why people play games that encompass all of the emotions and positive feelings that are experienced while playing. The four reasons are: the challenge (people like to have “hard fun”), the “easy fun” of activities (people usually become highly engaged in the experience), the altered state (clearing the mind to engage in the experience and thus the state inside the user’s head changes), and finally the collaboration (most games support this feature to allow for multiple players in any one game.)

In thinking of my own gaming habits the findings from this research makes a lot of sense. I am not really a gamer.. what I enjoy the most is playing Sudoku or Connect4 on my iphone. I always play Sudoku alone and I find that I am constantly challenging myself to beat my last score against the clock. For me, the challenge and the “hard fun” of the game is what keeps me immersed in the experience. Also, I find that I can turn my brain off to every other distracting piece of information when I am focusing on Sudoku solving – which for me, is not often enough between work, school, life, etc. I commute to work on the metronorth train and I often spend my time reading for school but at least every ride I “allow” myself to turn off that brain to life and turn it on for one game of Sudoku!

Why We Play Games Together

This article is the perfect compliment to XEODesign’s research because it outlines the design principles that should be followed when designing a collaborative gaming experience. Basically, the summary is that gaming experiences should afford working together but should also foster competition, they should be fun, they should be visually stimulating, they should allow users to display emotion and they should capture emotion and other human characteristics through the game’s characters, they should contain feedback, and finally they should be tested over and over with users as to truly understand the needs of the target audience in order to produce an effective product.

I don’t think these design principles should be limited to games; most collaborative interfaces should include at least a bit of all of these elements. Interfaces are about engagement and in order to do so, a user must be interested in the interface up front, but also must continue to stay immersed in that interest in order for the product to be successful.

My client is a user centred design agency that have won some significant projects. They involve rich interaction design for business applications. This is initially a 90 day project but it is realistic that project will become permanent within that 3 month period. You need to work as an interaction designer with an Experience Lead but also absorb some of the research function. They have a few projects lined up – one is for an international banking tool, the second is for a management tool that requires complex interaction, search and navigation and the third is a browser based tool. You will work with the team in the UK and internationally and you will have solid design skills which will be used for sketches, product maps, aesthetics, layouts and classic information architectures. Start immediately.

Be Kaler Blake

0207 420 3539

be@wearefutureheads.co.uk

My client, a travel company in Kingston is looking for people with up to 4 years experience within digital commerce.  Ideally you will have a background as a visual designer or front end developer  with an interest and a couple of years of exposure to user experience design. You will work with a small team managing 3 main brands online. You will influence the strategy, user research, testing and the user experience design and prototyping.  You will either be a highly competent designer, an expert in converting layouts in PhotoShop or Fireworks using accessible XHTML, CSS and JavaScript. You will be knowledgeable in the world of APIs and AJAX type technologies. This role encompasses the project life cycle from project planning and budgeting stage through to design, UX and testing.

Be Kaler Blake

0207 420 3539

be@wearefutureheads.co.uk

My client is an international user centred design agency, seeing growth with new clients in the UK team. I am looking for a usability tester next week for my client, they are looking to test the comparison of two phones over a 7 day period. You will be running the test, writing the report and making recommendations for change. Experience of usability testing for mobile phones is essential, working knowledge of French language would be a distinct advantage.

Be Kaler Blake

0207 420 3539

be@wearefutureheads.co.uk

I spend a great deal of time preaching the merits of user experience.  Software design is about the end user, not about my preferences as a user of software.

I particularly subscribe to the ideas in Alan Cooper’s work “Face 3” and the book the “Inmates are Running the Asylum”.  This involves researching one’s target market, creating personas typical of that market, then having those personas participate in realistic scenarios, which may or may not involve your software.

I think I’ve learnt the hard way, however, that sometimes designing the ideal user experience can be, frankly, a waste of time.

In a recent presentation, designer Joel Flom relates how designers sometimes create great designs which are gratefully received by the customer, who then proceed to take the design, consider it completely unworkable then place it in a box, never to be looked at again.   So all time spent in design, documentation and analysis is of no benefit to anyone.

Although creating a “world” (via personas and scenarios) that accurately model a user experience, we need to be careful that we do not lose sight of two highly influential factors. 

The first is ensuring that the personas we create truly do reflect the attitudes of our target market.  It’s tempting to create a persona that is a user advocate, that loves our company and wants to form a relationship with it.  This makes me feel warm inside but i don’t think it reflects every persons expectations.  Most people want to do something quickly and easily.  They’re not interested in taking us out to dinner.   Creating an elaborate “UX” for these people can be a waste of time.

The second involves the other stakeholders in the software project.  I’m talking about the analysts, developers, other designers, consultants and marketing that are expected to implement your ideas.  They have opinions too and need to be heard.  If they aren’t then they will either consciously or subconsciously sabotage or modify your grand plans beyond recognition.   

Joel provides 3 thoughts that may help.  Firstly, get a complete picture of the customer experience, not just an idealised one.  Become a student of the business, not just your customer’s business, but your own.  Understand what all the stakeholders want, particularly those responsible for implementing your solution.  Give the customer what they really need, not just what’s “cool”.  Having a more complete understanding of the problem will result in a truly effective solution.

Links

• I highly recommend Joel’s presentation.  It goes far beyond the simple ideas expressed here. “Ka-Chunk! When customer experience fails and to avoid it” – Joel Flom 
• Call Center Cat – KishinDn

I’m at a conference (aren’t I always) and everyone I know from high school and work is giving a speech. The room is set up like a conference with chairs but the stage looks like a stage in a grade school gym, with a red curtain and a flag. The speaker is wearing a navy blue suit and a red tie.

I’m miffed that I haven’t been asked to give a speech. I get up to walk out of the room and the speaker calls down to me and asks if I’d like to speak. I act condescending and say that I’m too busy. Later, as I’m watching people talk, I wonder why I said that. I should have just admitted that I wanted to talk. But it seems like it’s too late.

I set out boxes of thank you cards on a table at the side of the conference. They have the Bond logo on them. I encourage people to take a card and write a thank-you note to someone they want to give thanks to.

Later, I am working on a project with Friedman. I want to make changes to something on a website but I can’t figure out how. He comes over and shows me the edit link. It’s too small to see.

My client is a top digital design and branding agency based in London and they are looking for a Research Manager to work across their very high profile clients for 6-12 months (This role is likely to become permanent) You will work with a really sociable team based in West London. You will be responsible for a range of primary and secondary research, stakeholder engagement and planning activities. This is a client facing role and requires a strong and confident communicator. The role is required to both support the delivery of digital projects to our clients, and input into the strategic direction of the business through research and analysis. You will have 3-5 years of running similar research within a digital or user centred design agency – focusing on digital projects

Be Kaler Blake

0207 420 3539

be@wearefutureheads.co.uk

Yesterday I hit an IXDA free event at RGA. Steve Portigal gave an awesome talk on Improv and its implications/applications to UX design and research.

He generously put up his slides here…which, had I known he was going to do, Maalik and I might not have taken such furious notes!

One idea from his talk that blew me away was this diagram. Everyone defines the norm in relation to themselves. I don’t know if everyone considers themselves in the center of their bell-curve reality…but everyone thinks of their behavior in relation to others. “I am more _____ than my friends” is a great thing to walk away with. When people describe their behavior, make sure you get the context they see themselves in.

His performance was really the big take-home for me. Steve created an environment where people shared, we unafraid to fail and were open. A lot of questions centered around this. How can we create a culture (or cultural moment) for ourselves or our clients where people can share ideas unhindered by fear or the “editor” that stops good (and bad) ideas? A great message was: Come up with bad ideas. Try that out. “what if we made poisonous cereal?”

I think once you relax into the possibility of failure, success is easier. There’s less fear. Getting up to do the “one word story” exercise I was, at first, nervous. I wanted to do well. And then I said to myself “screw it up. fail spectacularly.” And then I could relax and participate in the game, fully.

I’m looking forward to doing more of that.