I have a weakness for science methods... I’ve mentioned it before. Dan Saffer just wrote about the design process and the scientific method. In short Saffer gives a good explanation why the design process is not a scientific method: a scientific process should lead to repeatable outcomes, while a design will (and should!) not. I agree.

UX professionals, as in other social / humanity professions, usually choose between a scientific view of their profession and a more humanity / quality / creative view. Social sciences are relatively new fields of science and for many years striving to prove that they deserve the “science” title. Postmodernism winds have changed it a little but still for the wide public the scientific title gives an integrity certificate to whatever people do. I know math & physics seems complicated to most people (and both are in many ways) but dealing with people is always more complicated and a bigger challenge in my view.  With no definite rules, no one paradigm, no outcome twice (even when you pursue the same process, as Saffer pointed out) you need more than “just” a scientific method to achieve a solution. Yes, I agree research will help, problem solving methods help too but none of these tells the full story of a design process, there is more into it.

So while some UX’ers invest in research, processes and methods other claim it is all about creativity, sketching and doing good. Is there a road in between? I hope so cause that is where I’m heading. Which way are you?

See this movie (via Core77) for a great description of a design process. Although I never designed a product that is not software, the process described in this film is so familiar and so similar to a software UX design. It is both trivial and surprising.

The movie presents the following process:
Designer gets to know the users (e.g. bike riders), their needs and consider the experience they are looking for > sketch a few options > prepare a rough model > test it.
Then designer take the results to the computer, make a mockup and add details (e.g. detailed design) > prepare a detailed model > and test it.  >> Iterate and redo this until they achieve user satisfaction.

If you think this is simple – try to pull it off in a software company J

I loved the last comment about the “wow” reaction when you see people using your design (and enjoy it), this is why I’m in this business, and Muller expressed it exactly as I feel it.

I found Fletcher post about culture and design in India and China very interesting. It immediately made me think about UX in Israel, something that I already discussed before.

Fletcher pointed out two important design abilities: understanding the big picture and attention for details which, I agree, are both important for a good UX design.

If I may summarize Fletcher ideas, although I do urge you to read the full post, attention to details can be undermined as a result of:
- Daily life isn’t easy so details seem like a luxury, if something works – it’s good enough
- Education programs are lacking
- Not enough UX experience

Details are treated better when:
- People are used to do as told and tend to follow requirements in an exact manner
- A culture that values mastering old techniques rather than inventing new ones

So where is Israel on these continuums? Well I would easily say on the Indian side.

> Life in Israel is probably easier than in India, as for the perspective Fletcher is giving, but then it is easy to say we have more important things to consider then design details. I’m not sure this is true for UX practitioners but for Israeli users, details can be perceived as luxury. Also for policy makers of websites and software companies – it can be a reason for not investing in UX (unless they have international management or international users).

> Education programs for UX are definitely lacking, actually the big universities for all I know (Tel Aviv and Jerusalem) don’t have programs in UX at all!

> Add to that the absence of “chain of command” in the Israel culture, on the contrary – we always argue J and usually everyone has their own opinion when it comes to interface design.

> We are great with inventions even if we are a bit conservative. Anyway an Israeli will always adapt a short cut if available rather than “master an old technique”, so if we can cut down on the details, it is a win win situation.

> I would add to that our tendency to “round” corners, which is a known Israeli “pride” and does not work great with UX details.

> About experience, I’m not that sure, we had a good start as the army and related industries has UX (or Human Factors) for a long time, but somehow it did not pass on to the civil software industry. I don’t have a good explanation as technology tend to pass on a lot…

There is more in UX than details, I know, but this is a good point for considering the cultural significant in UX design. Despite the above list, I consider my fellow UX designer in Israel to be rather good in dealing with details, but hey I’m an Israeli too, so I’m not sure it counts.

I would love to know what you think – take a moment to share your thoughts.

For some time now I want to write about research and creativity as a follow up of my former post about the  UX design process. Research is considered a fundamental part of the UX process and lately I’ve been thinking about its role in design. I didn’t have the time to write my thoughts… but Dan Norman article came just in time, along with these two responses: Zak Warfel thorough rebuttal and Steve Portigal response, it’s a good read. If you have your own thoughts – please share.
<Edit: another response worth mentioning is from Adam Richardson and the one I was looking for talking about research in general and not only design research from Nicolas Nova>

I read today Warren Berger post on “four things I’ve learned about designers” . I like it, although I’m pretty sure he means good designers and not just designers. Anyway earlier today I was asking a colleague some ‘basic’ questions about a new feature we are designing, so Berger post came right on time. It made me think about the different traits a good designer should have. This is not about knowledge or technical skills but more about personality. You may have these traits before you start your design career but it will usually develop and evolve with experience.

The first “thing” Berger is describing is the ability to ask “stupid questions” like- “why are we doing it?”.  He is sooo right. I do believe it is one of those things that can really make a difference. I would like to broaden it a little. It is not just about asking the questions it is also about the desire to review all options, being curious and think openly without a closure. The need for cognitive closure varies between people (and cultures), read more about it in this classical article or check yourself with this scale .

Many people are looking for answers as they start thinking about a feature. How will it work? What technology should we use? So many times I’ve seen requirements phrased as solutions; people even go as far as describing the interface details on a requirement “we need a button in screen XX that will do this and that” or just start prototyping. This is a basic mistake. Human but wrong. Obvious we are programmed to find solutions fast, it is basic survival, but designing is different. We need to begin by exploring the need: who needs it? Why? When? In what context, what are the circumstances? What are the options for implementation… only when we gather information and map these variables – hopefully using visual means (more on this in another post), we can start discussing optional solutions - always starting with more than one solution - still no closure...  For me it is the time to free my mind, satisfy my endless curiosity, ignore reality and restrictions, to avoid structure and order. All these will be part of the design process later (and an important part), but not yet.

You should. I just came back from a great weekend in London; it was all about celebrating life. Sleep well, love, see art, shop, eat & drink.

The Mariscal retrospective was definitely a celebration. This guy is amazing, the colors, the fun, the variety. I loved it. The Design museum in London – was always a favorite of mine. I feel they know what I like, what I want to see.

The entrance is “loaded” with beautiful 2 sided, black & white illustrations, which brings Mariscal style without the color. Colors have a tendency to draw your attention (and definitely Mariscal lively colors do), so starting in black & white gives the essence of his drawings, before you see the rest of his work.

 

The main room is all about colors and creativity. Oh, and Cobi, of course.

>

And Camper paper bags:

Before leaving I went through the shop (obvious)
And they had this on sale – it is for real, for 200 pounds, a bit expensive … but one day I’ll have it!

-------------------------