You cannot design an experience

bubbles black and white

Experiences belong to the people having them. Designers do not own the experience. Designers are not god and designers cannot design an experience someone else is going to have. The experience belongs to the person (or people). There inlies the ownership.

I have been looking at a lot of portfolios, business cards, blog posts, tweets and job descriptions. “I design experiences” is a phrase that really bugs me. With all the tooting and fan faring about ‘user centered design’ and putting people first, it is awfully bold for a designer, developer or manager to claim they will decide and thereby design what kind of experience someone else will have. How can we possibly define their emotions, their thoughts, their environment, their fears, their childhood memories, their little delights? Have we lost all sense of humbleness and humility?

However, experience is a very important element to consider, if not an essential part of a design framework, philosophy or value. The experience people have using a product or service is what I care about. Well, let’s also not forget all the people whom our work effects that are not necessarily users. I bet that is something ringtone designers think a lot about, the non-users. Anyone notice how the chimes and bells have gotten more office friendly? The dude in the cubicle next to you is a non-user but certainly effected by that ringtone. But, I digress. Perhaps we can design for an experience. The difference is humble intent.

Human behavior never ceases to surprise me. People will always use tools and services in a way we may not expect. We’re humans, we appropriate. And if we do indeed appropriate, how can anyone other than you ultimately decide what experience you will have?

Disputes encouraged. Photo [flickr_lulalola]

Let’s not confuse ‘user-centered’ and ‘user-led’

Some designers all in a huff about a post written on fast company arguing against user-led innovation. It’s flying through my Twitter stream and just came into my inbox via my dear friend and Poynter colleague Jose Kusunoki. He sent it out to our Poynter list-serve asking what we thought about the following quote.

The Apple and IKEA way
Take Apple. One evening, well into the night, we asked some of our friends on the Apple design team about their view of user-centric design. Their answer? “It’s all bullshit and hot air created to sell consulting projects and to give insecure managers a false sense of security. At Apple, we don’t waste our time asking users, we build our brand through creating great products we believe people will love.”

Below is my critique on the commentary folks are making about the post, rather than the post itself. In short, all I’m trying to say is, calm down.

I think a lot of things about this. It’s passing like wild-fire through my twitter stream right now. First of all, not every company is, can be and should be like Apple.

Building brand and product are certainly related but are not the same thing. In this post,it seems the two words are being used interchangeably. The writer here also is confusing user-centered and user-led. Attention to brand, identity, marketing, product, design, motion, function and many other elements are crucial. They live together in an ecology. But they are not all the same thing.

User-led design puts a product in front of some people, they give feedback and you redesign based on their feedback. Crudely, you could say it disregards the  judgement of the designer.

User-centered, however, in my opinion, designs for the need, pain points, problems, pleasures and other elements per required by the user, and many other factors. This method considers feedback from users. But feedback, research and findings are one element of many qualitative and quantitative data points that inform the design. Along with, yes, judgement from the creators of the product or service (designers, developers, managers, etc).

One is designed for users. One is designed by users. I advocate for the first, this post and possibly Apple seems to be arguing against the second.

We’re not god. We’ll never know how people are going to understand, interpret or use the things we design. Did anyone know newspapers would make awesome hats in the rain? No. But turns out, they do.

The Social Journalist

brain exploration
Broadcasting stories to social media has led to the emergence of social journalism.

Social Journalism (definition in progress)
Social Journalism is the practice of broadcasting a news story with commentary to a social network. The social journalist practices writing, editing, judgement, authority, attention to audience .

Argument
The social journalist does not necessary practice news gathering and fact checking like a news journalist does. This person scrutinizes text and through their horizons, interpretation and the context of their lifeworld, they comment on the content in the context of ‘convention, reception and interpretation’ in a social way, as Barnard says in his book Visual Culture.

Commentary
I’m in the process of brainstorming for a paper I am writing. In my research, I have found that  people who share and comment on news stories to their social networks and news journalists have many things in common. This paper will argue for the emergence of the social journalist and will explore how sharing UI on news sites have enabled this emergence. This paper will also acknowledge the differences between news journalist and social journalist. Social media and its integration with news media, for the first time ever, has empowered the lay person for to be not only a consumer, but also to produce content and easily broadcast to mass communities.

Design sharing tools for the creative process

Narrative (The Creative Process)

Sharing a news story usually seems like simply flicking a click of a button, scribbling out a quick thought and going about your merry way.

But news consumers, who once, were only news consumers are now also producers. Beyond the blogger, only recently has design and technology facilitated the tools to empower the lay consumer to interact with content in a creative way. They are now work as editors, writers and broadcasters, in their own social right.

John McCarthy and Peter Wright compose a fantastic book on experience design, Technology as Experience. “Experience is ever present,” they say. “We are always engaged in experience even when we are trying to stand back from it to describe it.” McCarthy and Wright reaffirm how it important it is to think about and the holistic experience of anything when designing, and in this case, sharing a news story.

Browsing through news stories is absolute active participation. Unlike watching news TV or even reading a print publication, the reader has choice more choice between on and off or skim or not skim. In the current content consuming paradigm, beyond a news summary, the reader must actively decide to click, and almost navigate to a new page to get immersed into a story. It takes a significantly greater commitment. The reader then must actively make a judgement, “do I want to consider reading this article?” If yes, they click, if no, they keep skimming headlines and photos.

This is the first step of what I’m referring to as an editing process, where the reader is flexing their judgement skills. Moving forward, they continue to do this when they’ve consumed enough of the article or graphic and decides to share it. Only now, after all of these hurdles, have they come to the act of sharing something. That standing on the assumption that the sharing interface (and logging in process for that matter) is seamlessly easy to understand.

If the article inspires and resonates with the reader, it’s likely it has a high share-ability. That or it speaks to the readers’ audience, the audience that is comprised of their network. Of course, considering, most people don’t think about the Facebook News Feed is developed in such a way that it’s difficult to overshare to your network, according to Aditya Agarwal, Facebook’s Director of Engineering. Though, they are hoping people will learn and stop worrying about overshare.

In Erik Stolterman’s book, Imagination and Communication, he talks about imagination and communication. The reader takes ideas from their minds eye and must make it communicable, he says, which is part of the creative process.

Once the reader has read the article and formed some kind of thought and new meaning, it still exists in their mind, in their imagination. Once they have taken that vision, explored and then written their thoughts, they have led to “new truths” cited to Erik Stolterman. Their new truths, that are “possible to share with other people.”

And beyond all of this, conscious or not, these readers are engaging in civic and cultural participation, which Jean Burgess, author of Vernacular Creativity cites.

Culture is the means by which we, as individual citizens and communities, experience what the world is like, how we fit in it, and importantly, how we relate to others who are different from us at the same time as we seek out opportunities for belonging.

Where participatory media opens up space for us, as ordinary citizens, to speak and represent ourselves and our ways of being in the world, and to encounter difference, then it’s also a space for the everyday practice of cultural citizenship  in that context, everyday creativity is civic engagement, in a sense.

It is not even the writing process itself here that is creative and expressive. It is the development of new truths, personal meaning and broadcasting in a cultural context to an audience, especially at such a mass scale, that has never been done before. Participating in every day media, like Burgess says, helps us develop our own identities, how we see ourselves and how we fit into our worlds. All the while we are making judgements about the what the people in our networks share, say do, and don’t do and how they fit into the world. That has always been a part of civic engagement.

When designing a share UI, designers must consider:

  • The overall experience from arriving to the article in the first place. How did the reader get here? RSS, Website, another shared link? Think about where they are coming and possibly where they are going afterwards.
  • Consider when they are likely going to want to share.
  • Design the UI with enough space that supports an emergent writing and editing process, like a resizable window.
  • Think of the reader as a media producer. Is your share UI a pop up or modal dialoge? Will they lose everything they wrote if they go to reread a section of text, navigate to a new site to get some information or another link or copy and paste something?
  • Reduce the amount of choices they must make. The New York Times does a nice job giving commentary a high position in the visual hierarchy, while still giving their consumer/producers the autonomy to hit recommend without saying a word, which still says something.

Hey Internet, check out RockMelt

I spent the summer interning at RockMelt with a rockstar team of engineers and designers who came from places like Google, Apple, Facebook, IDEO. I practiced all the things I have learned about collaboration.

One of my first projects was to work with my team on the splash page. That’s the page you see when you open up RockMelt for the first time. I had to decide how to give a product tour, highlight the most important features and begin to define the product voice–all without overwhelming our new users. It seems obvious, now, that sharing, search, friends and news are the big ticket items, but we had to go through the process to make sure that’s what we wanted to and needed to communicate.

These four rectangles with some hover action may not seem like anything ground breaking, but I have a stack of sketches of inches thick with designs that didn’t make the cut. It’s pretty cool to see it come to life free from the cloaks of stealth even if it’s from my dinky graduate student apartment in Bloomington, Indiana.

I made those buttons on the new tab page, so please send lots of feedback. They really do read all of it.

I also worked on our alpha invite system flow from the employees sending invites up to the experience the user has downloading, installing and getting to the splash page above.

I also picked up the reigns for parts of the Friend Window and took it from a tabbed view to the split view on mac. The team and I went out to do some exploratory work for RockMelt features that exist further in the future. I can’t wait to see that come to fruition.

All the while, I got to chat with tons of really cool people in our demographic. They came in to try RockMelt and help us figure out which features were totally buggy, confusing or hey– just plain awesome. I did some other things too, none of which were mastering the Rubik’s cube.

Congratulations on launch, team. I’m so grateful to have worked on this browser with you. It’s hard to believe we were ever doing sprints in that little Palo Alto office. I can’t wait to see what comes next. I can only imagine–and re-imagine.

The shared experience

Gorilla Sharing 2

Sharing a post seems simple enough. Copy and paste a link, click the like button or recommend a story. Seems simple enough–not too complicated. There is a lot more happening behind these 1 and 2 step flows. When we share we are defining our identify, building our social capital and simply speaking, expressing ourselves.

Takin the action to share, or not share, by whatever process is an editorial process. Creative tools like Facebook give people who were once only consumers a more liberal opportunity to also be producers.They are using their personal judgement to select or ignore what they choose to broadcast to their networks. Each post is a reflection of  their values by showing what they consume and promote and thereby constructing their identity.

Schniederman and Hochheiser discuss the transformation from readers to leaders in social media. Social media users are constantly shifting from roles as passive readers to very active leaders: those who move conversations in the community forward. In between they act as contributors and collaborators and are constantly negotiating their role and identity as it shifts even from post to post within their greater social communities online.

Sharing to a community also builds on social capital. Journalism history researcher discusses the orientation of text in his book Communities of Journalism.

“When a reader writes a letter to the editor, they are speaking to the public, speaking to the editor and to the self,” he says.

Nord’s statement here supports identity building while interacting with news. What also happens here is engagement with the community. Posting and sharing certainly speaks to a public, especially as the web is becoming more open. Friends in the network work as editors, they critique, comment and build on what has been stated. As a person shares to their network, the public and editor are one in the same as they are building their social capital.

In a recent study done at Michigan State University, Ellison, Stenfield and Lampe found significant social capital benefits from college students on Facebook. They found students used facebook “primarily to maintain existing offline relationships or to solidify what would otherwise be ephemeral, temporary acquaintanceships.” In doing this, they found “indices of psychological well-being, such as self esteem and satisfaction with life.” Sharing and engaging in these communities not only pass time and serve as passive news to read about friends, but also builds socially beneficial experiences.

Malcom Barnard quotes Roger Fry in his book Approaches to Visual Culture. Barnard writes:

Fry believed that message of the work is described as’a whole mass experience hidden in the artist’s subconscious’ Conscious or unconscious, the matter is still that of expression.

When someone share to their network, whether or not they are conscious and aware of their expressions does not take away from them expressing themselves at are. When they post, and especially with commentary,  they are engaging in editorial, creative work and the process of communication.

In doing this, their expressive nature directly relates to their identity that is always in progress of being crafted and the social capital in which they are building. The individual does this across their networks, their community while every other friend in their network is simultaneously making the same conscious and unconscious negotiations.

Make music, make friends: my social graph

I wish I had drawn out my interpretation of my social communities before I installed the new Facbeook app, Social Graph. What this app does very well is show me how my facebook friends are connected and clustered.

I ran the app, took a screen grab and began to label the clusters. When I loaded the app again, my clusters looked different. In these screen grabs I did not include some of the outliers. Most of those people are friends I made while traveling. There are so many ways to interpret my social circles. The app is slow right now and it doesn’t tell a story. But I can do that:

My Social Graph

Ultimately, what I found is that my techno community links my high school and ancestry communities the most. Media and music are still the center of my social circle here. My current job at the Office for Women’s Affairs is surprisingly barely connected to anything at all. I have two London networks that don’t overlap at all.

My Social Graph

I can see that media and music are the centrally what link me to people and my professional communities. I have strong clusters in Indiana and San Francisco that thickly overlap with my Chicago community.

My Social Graph

I found many of the outliers here to have a specific ethnic quality in common. I also had an absolutely random seeming smattering of “indian people” from all over the country in that cluster.

Overall, I’ve learned that my music communities centrally have guided my social life. I have an enormous high school network, which makes sense because I joined Facebook as soon as I graduated high school. My Bloomington music community is tightly connected to my student media groups which then led me to my job at the Star, the news design community, my Poytner Fellowship and the cluster of friends in Indianapolis who worked at Rolls Royce.

Last year, friends from my San Francisco Tech and Techno Community went to India for a wedding. They stayed with my aunts, uncles and cousins and must have friended each other. There are enough people from my high school who moved to San Francisco, listen to Techno and work in Tech, so we can see those overlaps too.

I was surprised how few links there were between my tech communities and RockMelt, but then again it makes sense because I did not get the internship by knowing someone, per say (which is quite rare). There was a 6-degrees of separation alumni connection there.

I wish I could make some sense of the random smattering of Indian people. That cluster is concentrated with Indian people I know from all over the country and world. I guess we really are all family.

I would love to search for specific friends in this app. Still, very cool. This is also the first time I got to check off every category in my tags!