I am writing today in defense of the magazine. It’s an aged format which in it’s heyday could be likened to the iPad - a compact and flashy new way to consume content. Unlike it’s predecessors - scrolls, books, and newspapers - magazines afforded a richer more visual presentation of thoughts and ideas. Every page printed in vivid color with a waxy finish and at a marginal cost. If I consider my favorite periodical circa 1993, Popular Science, I liken the experience to an Engadget.com that took a month to download. It’s 2010 and the magazine no longer resides in a world where news can travel at a physical stride. Printed matter has adapted but not evolved.

Magazines and newspapers play to their strengths of factual grounding and well produced substance. These traits take time and money two things that the internet circumvents exceedingly well. In our modern world the demand for entertaining media has elevated to a feverish pace. However the expectation still remains that things of value come with a premium. This will always be the case for well produced and well fact checked material. The problem arises in the delivery vehicle.

On the surface magazines are presented like a book - linearly. Page one follows page two, so on and so forth, but they are read in a very different manner. Take a moment to observe someone experiencing a magazine. You may be surprised to notice that they select their entry point at random and skim through until their next stop. Then why is it that initial forays into digitizing magazines (mag+ wired) attempt to preserve the false perception of linearity?

As famously described by US Sentator Ted Stevens, “the internet is a series of tubes.” Simplistic as it may appear this statement illuminates the ability of web navigation to be a meandering nebulous experience. Though the pipes metaphor is deceptive. It betrays the authentic complexity of the internet’s vast connections from one point to another with infinite interchanges in between. This behavior is nourished by sites with open ended architecture. For example, I may receive a link to a youtube video but end up spending thirty additional minutes consuming unexpected content. The beauty in this experience is that my path through the site is undesigned.

Mag+ and Wired Tablet Edition are praise worthy attempts. Though where I think they are missing the point is in putting emphasis on flamboyant executions as opposed to elegant interaction design. Advertisements with 3D rotations and 2001 style flash transitions are at best novel. I will give credit to Wired for integrating twitter and commenting. This is at least a step in the right direction. I’d argue that social aggregation ought to be a critical layer of the navigational experience.

Instead of a static table of contents there could be an aggregation of social activity both on the web and within the app. What are people reading the most? What are people talking about? What is resonating? This would give users multiple entry points into the magazine. On the matter of the granular interaction I think that links should be connected from article to article. One might skip from reading about dolphins to reading about lasers beams but not because they are in consecutive order. The mental model of magazine as linear experience must be exploded. Think of magazines as a ball of content with a vast network of tubes. The future is in embracing the serendipitous habits of readers.

Stirred from hiatus. I’ll admit that originally the intent of this lonely island adrift in the blogosphere was pure selfish sport. Though a day came when I was satisfied. On that day I no longer desired to write - so I stopped. That was nearly a year ago. Though what you may find peculiar is that here I am again tap tap tapping away at my keyboard. SURPRISE!

So what is it that roused me from my abrupt departure? Four simple letters… N.A.S.A. Oh yes, we’re talking about the bad to the bone, no frills, Rusky ass kicking, American space program. There was a time when I myself wanted to be an astronaut. Yes, it’s true. I’d hold my breath until my face turned purple all the while spinning insanely just to prove that I could stand the g-forces in the event of a catastrophic emergency re-entry. I went to space camp THREE (count them) THREE times. So why such an abrasive title for my idol? Well the NASA of yesteryear would take a steaming dump right on the face of the NASA of today. It would achieve this monumental fecal feat not because the exploits of today are less impressive but because NASA has become the Screech of government organizations. Less confident, less excessive, and less boisterous about its deeds. Where’d the razzle dazzle go?

Take one human being, place said human above a pile of explosives and see if they don’t blow up. It takes a pilot with brass balls more dense than uranium to mount that candle. The first seven space cowboys were probably some of the best PR NASA has had in the last fifty years. You had good looking men in silver costumes/booties risking their lives to stick it to the Russians - move over Bowie. Such hoopla ignited the dreams of a nation. Rocket fuel was burned by the ton so little Bobby and Jamie Sue would grow up imagining a life filled to the brim with jetpacks, hover cars, and turkey dinners in pill form. Inspiration, awe, and ass kicking were the three staples that NASA produced and it did so with cold blooded efficiency. The space agency of the 60s created thousands of jobs and catapulted America ahead of her godless/soulless competition (as far as technology goes).

So flash forward to modern times. We’ve scheduled a trip back to the moon but it’s going to take twice as long as it took to get there the first go around. We’re supposedly visiting Mars with a manned expedition but who the hell knows if that’ll get the hatchet? If you asked for a raise of hands to see if anyone even cares anymore the resulting smattering would be tepid at best. NASA is fucking up because it has a fundamental PR issue.

Recently we bombed the moon in the name of science. There was no five network nationally televised tailgate style sit down. The mark of great hype is in getting people who don’t usually give a shit about one “thing” to suddenly drop what they’re doing to turn their crazed attention on that “one thing”. *COUGH COUGH* Michael Phelps and Lance Armstrong *COUGH*. So when you take a speeding satellite and you smash it into the moon you bet your ass that this is an opportunity to get people amped about space. Why? Well why do people watch nascar? Why do they watch monster truck rally on SUNDAY SUNDAY SUNDAY? They pay for these things. People love watching shit blow up. If they didn’t then Michael Bay would be up shit creek without a paddle. I digress.

The problem is in presentation. The relay video of the actual bombardment showed a grainy image of the moon (check), a V/O count down to impact (check), then an indiscernible pin prick of a flash (FAIL). That was it. I seriously waited two hours to see a Where’s Waldo speck come and go? If I hadn’t known what I was looking at it could have just been an artifact in the digital feed. I blinked… FUCKKKKKKKKKK!!! Seriously, how do you fuck up one of the coolest explosions in space history since the destruction of the Death Star??

So what is it all worth? I believe that the budgetary woes that NASA is facing is due wholly to a failure to adequately brag about the cool shit that they are pulling off. It baffles me that you can spend $100,000,000 on a project, get the damn thing to its destination, and yet lack the foresight to see that what people really want is a worthwhile payoff. It’s like getting all the way through foreplay but then forgetting about the orgasm. Come on NASA get your shit together. I thought you had smart people in a room thinking shit up with another room of even more smart people thinking cool shit up? BTW where’s my ray gun? Show people more explosions and hype the spectacle and they’ll be humping your leg for more.

Dear NASA,
Please make space sexy again.
Love Nana

Honestly though you could have skipped the entire rant to get to this final pearl. NASA needs an ad agency.

Additional Reading: Daily Mail - The flash nobody saw
Extra Credit: Photoshop Tutorial - Make a Cool Space Explosition

It’s often that I find my mind wandering relentlessly from thought to thought as I walk down the street or navigate Photoshop. It’s then that I take those thoughts and prune them for my blog. This is probably going to be a bit more nebulous than most posts. For the past week I’ve neglected my responsibilities instead focusing on design. Fear not however, I haven’t forgotten about you. This post will prove it. Be excited.

I may have mentioned in the past that the sport of design is a neurotic one. One thinks a lot about themselves as they decide whether or not to add that additional inch of gradient or to nix it completely. (Maybe it’s the pancakes I ate today that put me in such a plane mood = no gradient). I’m no exception to this rule. As I’ve been pushing pixels for my new client I’ve begun to wonder whether or not I’m any good at all. I find myself looking at the work of my peers with great admiration. It doesn’t look like mine and thus I’m smitten by their fine talents. Reminder to self, don’t window shop.

On the one hand I realize that to do something that is truly innovative means to create with an unbridled hand. You have to let it all go otherwise you risk replicating the same motions that you’ve executed in the past. Well outside of your safety net is where you want to be. But by definition it’s also a very uncomfortable place.

Does one ever look at their own work and think, “god that’s so fucking hot!”? Or is it up to unbias observers to make such grandiose assertions? I suppose what I’m asking is does every designer secretly hate themselves?

P.S. the photo isn’t of me, it’s a sneak peek at the brand renovation that I’m currently working on.

With the new year comes new ventures. Mine shall hence forth be called Theory + Craft. As with the start of this blog I felt just arrogant enough to think that I had something legitimate to contribute to the creative world. The idea is to reintroduce the notion of mid-century design generalization to the masses. We cast off the contemporary idea that one must be specialized in a single skill set. Once upon a time a designer who could create a chair could dream up an airplane. With each project the context for design shifted but the motions remained the same. Now we are staunch with defining our roles, “I design furniture, just chairs.” or “I’m an architect and I don’t do interiors.”

Theory and Craft is a design firm invented to handle our clients’ needs in a holistic manner. To test this out in the next few months we’ll be launching a brand renovation project, a documentary on a team at this years Tour de France, and providing image consulting. Specialization is so yester-decade.

Hello Renaissance.

Extra Credit: Big thanks to Collin @ Quickleft.com

Humans are immensely complex machines. It’s insane that we don’t come with an actual user manual. Then again with all of the education, so called self help gurus, and psychologist there’s an abundant support staff on hand to mend the injuries caused by trial and error. We stumble through life interpreting. We interpret the glances, the backhanded comments, the embraces that go on for a moment too long. It’s not surprising that we quite often misinterpret and expound on the decrepit foundation that is created.

There is hope. Design* has acknowledged the thing that psychology has been so breathlessly touting for ages - emotions. When I have discussions with my father about what it takes to be a parent he expresses that it’s a matter of simply being there. Being a good dad is about taking care of your children. His elegant philosophy lacks granularity and marked consistency. Though I must testify that I did come out alright, following his doctrine of presence is a matter of placing stock in serendipity. He won the lottery.

If time has exclaimed one great truism it is that with advancement comes higher levels of resolution. For example at first we observed that things fall from trees. Then we realized that the falling was due to an invisible force, we called it gravity. Finally we learned to control that force in a civil manner with careful calculation. If all goes well skyscrapers won’t topple and planes don’t plummet from the sky. With regards to the internal processes of human beings we are rapidly approaching this apex of understanding.

Today, school programs are being created that smash the tired paradigm of rote learning. By these carefully planned strategies our children are failing less, succeeding more, and in time will achieve immeasurable ambitions. All of this empowered by the simple fact that we are finally understanding that there is an invisible force called emotional development and it isn’t just a sweetener for life but a critical part of being human.

What must be divined from this lesson is that it’s not enough to just stumble through life. It’s not enough to artlessly be mindful. It takes real work to become balanced. It takes copious amounts of dedication to sort through the natural and unnatural emotions that are experienced day in and day out. Perhaps it’s more than we were ever meant to handle. As with many theories only time will tell and when we are seeing our lives last for hundreds and thousands of years perhaps the prodigious pattern will emerge.

*design as opposed to things that are not designed which emerge from chaos.

This is one “big” reply to all of the feedback that I received from my article, Everybody is Faking It. First I wanted to thank all of you who took the time to read my post as well as those who made the extra effort to leave a comment. Thank you. Your words are valuable to me and more importantly an indicator that I’m not producing absolute rubbish, but instead thought provoking rubbish.

So the comments were on both ends of the spectrum. There was wonderful praise and staunch criticism. We all love when a firm clap on the back is received for a job well done. On the other hand I for one equally adore formal critique. After all, how is one supposed to better their craft if it isn’t scrutinized by peers?

I found that while some digested the ideas that I presented, others concentrated on my form. Form can be critical but isn’t it more important to investigate the content? This is the separation between arguing semantics and discussing meaning. It is my hope that the material that I cast out into the void, that is the collective conscience of the internet, will spark constructive candor. Surprisingly the referenced article struck a cord and did just that.

Thank you all for joining me in this fleeting fancy that is my blog.

If you read this article you’ll be a better designer/developer/producer because it’s going to be a swift kick to your groin. There’s a reason why 99% of all of the shit out there fails. It’s because somewhere in the design process common sense gets thrown out the window. I know you’re really good at engineering but that alone can’t be your product’s agenda. Look at the Segway, elegant engineering but completely missed the point. You can’t give those things away because no one wants to look like an idiot crawling down the street on their Dr. Evil Mobile. Ask yourself, what’s the first thing that anyone says when they see someone on a Segway? Invariably, while pointing it’s always, “check out that idiot!”. Want a tip? If you’re going to design a vehicle make sure people look cool riding in/on it. And for good measure when they are standing around it make sure that looks cool too.

Stop making Segways. I don’t mean that in the literal sense. I mean that in the general sense. Reconnect with your user base and get to know them. Most importantly remember that you’re designing for human beings and they don’t just have needs or wants they have desires too.

Don’t underestimate the power of EGO. Why else would people put cancer sticks in their mouths and light up? They want to feel like they look cool. That whole getting addicted to it thing comes much later down the line. Dying? It only makes you seem cooler. Everyone wants to be a harbinger of Cool.

If in real life Ego were the law then it’s doubly so on the internet. Give your users a way to show off. Whether it’s having the most epic loot in World of Warcraft, the most friends in Facebook, the best picture in Hot or Not, or the most thought provoking things to say in Twitter. The perception of “coolness” is a pot of gold. It doesn’t matter if anyone actually reads your tweets (trust me they don’t) but if you think that they do then you’ll tweet more often.

Describe your concept in a single sentence. Gaining traction in this ever expanding market is about turf wars. Things spread virally one person at a time. The more people you get spreading your gospel the further it goes. Each person who breaks the chain and doesn’t pass you along is a defeat. That is why it is critical to be as fluid and lubricated as possible. What is that one liner that each user is going to mention when their friend asks them, “why should I use this?”

You are designing for humans. I can’t emphasize this enough. The only reason interaction designers exist is because designers often forget to ask, What does the user want? Users are not dazzled by technology alone. That cool way that your widget gyro balances itself automatically - no one cares. It’s all about Me. How does it make my life easier? How does it make people like me more? Me me me me me…

The big question on every user’s mind is, How can your thing make me seem cooler?

A few months back my company Pattern Making Co. decided to enact an indefinite boycott on the iPhone SDK, because our application the Cool O’Meter 3000 was denied live status on the App Store. You can read up on our rationale at the following blog post. When we heard that another App that had also previously been denied had recently received the green light we decided to retry our luck.

Today, I’m thrilled to announce that Apple has decided to allow our humble app through the pipe and we are now live on the store.

Extra Credit: Cool O’Meter on the App Store

When it comes to designing products a modicum of restraint should be employed to ensure a successful result. Sure there are many features that could be added just because they are possible but I ask you to live strictly by the following cliche - keep it simple stupid. The notion of “just because” has been a thorn in my side in nearly every process I’ve participated in. Think of the following story the next time you find yourself mid feature-creep.

Jeff Hawkins is perhaps best known for being at the helm of Palm Computing Inc, the makers of the groundbreaking Palm Pilot. In the early 90s a number of companies attempted to move into the portable computing space and unfortunately crashed and burned. Apple for instance spent five-hundred million dollars to develop the Newton. As history would show Newton was a flop. It was a masterful attempt to cover far too much ground without being excellent at any one thing in particular.

As if a miracle, the first Palm Pilot prototype was developed for a paltry three million dollars. This begs to ask what was different about their process and final creation? The answer you’ll see was both intriguing and head slappingly obvious.

The first product that Palm Computing released would be the little known Zoomer PDA in 1993. It was a seven-hundred dollar portable handheld intended to be sold at Radio Shack. Price aside, though it were high in technology it was mired by a design by committee process. Like the Newton, Zoomer didn’t hit the mark either. Luckily however through means of a savvy business strategy Palm had enough funds to make another go at it. The second time around they conducted research using early Zoomer adopters as their focus. What they found was that surprisingly the vast majority (90%) wanted to marry their handheld to their personal computer. Who knew that being able to sync data seamlessly would be such a huge breakthrough (see ipod+itunes).

In 1994 work began on the second Palm device which would be released as the Pilot but ultimately known as the Palm Pilot. With the learnings from the research in hand and a distinct distaste for design by committee Jeff established a few stipulations.

1. It would fit in a shirt pocket
2. It would run on AAA batteries
3. It would sell for less than three hundred dollars

This is where the story takes a turn towards the quirky. Jeff went into the machine shop and cut a block of wood out to roughly the size and shape that he had in mind. The block fit well in shirt pocket and felt comfortable in his hand. He carried it everywhere he went. He’d take fake phone calls on the block of wood just to see how it felt. If he had to write down an appointment he would jot it on the block. If stopped by someone, in the hallways, whom had an idea for a feature he would take out the block and after hearing their pitch find a place for it. As the block filled up with features it was obvious that cuts had to be made. If a designer was adamant about an addition they’d have to convince Jeff to erase another. Often was the case that the designer/engineer would argue that it was an easy thing to add. Unfortunately, there just wasn’t infinite real-estate on the block. After a week the Palm Pilot was born. The rest, as they say, is history.

What can be divined from this anecdote is that just because something can be implemented easily doesn’t mean that it is in the best interest of the user. I’ve probably pointed to “Clippy” a million times but I’ll once again point to our ironic anti-hero. I’m not advocating the complete abolishment of automation. Though please consider that if the ultimate goal of design is to fade into the background then any frustration caused by assumptions should be avoided.

It’s important to establish what your product does. Don’t fear making a statement that your device is strictly an MP3 player and nothing else. Though if you make this proclamation take all actions necessary to avert a feature creep. The Palm Pilot managed to crack the handheld code, because unlike it’s predecessors it was specific about its intent at the cost of discarding unnecessary features.

Extra Credit: Wired Magazine Article on the Block of Wood - Circa 1999

I was driving expediently from Boulder to Denver yesterday with my friend the barista. We were discussing what she wanted to do with her future and a masters degree came up. I asked her why she wanted to study Art History and she said to get the proper credentials for the job that she wanted. What came to mind was that she really didn’t need to go to school.

Perhaps I’m just cynical, because grad school often times sounds like a hardy excuse to me. It’s like a chain smoker saying that they’ll quit tomorrow. A halfhearted promise that is only meant to sooth the bearers mind. What I told her instead was that there are few domains out there that require actual credentials and even those can be faked (Frank Abagnale).

In fact, if you were to ask a handful of the most successful people in this world what their secret was they would unanimously say, in one form or another, that they learned to play the system (read: fake it). Allow me to get down to the bottom of what I mean by this.

What if I were to tell you that everything that is order in our daily lives was fabricated unconsciously by humans. There would be no open market or dollar value if we did not exist on this planet. After all, if a tree fell in the woods, and no one was there to witness, would it make a sound? So following this train of logic it’s reasonable to assume that we make the rules for this system. It’s not by magic that celebrities rise to fame. We the population create the conditions that establish the opportunities by which the right people are successful. Now, there is something to be said about the collective social organization that is culture and society but that’s an entirely different discussion.

The point that I’m assembling is that since this is all made up anyway then every participant in turn is also making it up as they go along. For a breath of reality take a look at other cultures and what they consider socially acceptable. In some societies writing on a piece of paper that you won’t recommit a crime is enough because honor is everything. That is their norm/reality.

If you’re still following along then you’ve probably come to the next question. If all things are faked then what can one do to learn to fake it better? I believe that it’s really simple. Learn to say things with a straight face i.e. bluff. Bill Gates managed to walk into IBM, tell them that Microsoft had an operating system to sell, retained ownership and received royalties on said software, yet didn’t once give away that he had nothing. That’s right, he didn’t have a single line of code to offer up on the chopping block. This feat lead to one of the greatest wealths in history.

So back to my friend whom wants to be a curator in a gallery. I recommended that she pick a few that she wanted to work at, walk into each dressed professionally and say, “I love the work here, I love the art world, and I want to work for you.” To that she’ll probably hear, “What are your credentials?” Her reply should be, “Honestly I don’t have a formal degree, though I am an artist and more importantly I have the desire and passion to learn everything there is to learn about this industry.” At this point one of three things will probably occur.

1. The owner says, “Sorry but you need the appropriate credentials and I can’t hire you.”
2. The owner says, “I love your fire. When can you start?”
3. The owner says, “I love your drive but right now we’re not hiring. Let’s see if we can work something out.”

If you get response 1 then you really didn’t want to work there anyway. The owner lacks the vision to hire someone so forward thinking. In a perfect world we’d always get response 2. The most likely retort would probably be 3. In this scenario you need to then ask yourself how badly do you really want the job? If you take a play from P Diddy’s biography then you’ll find yourself saying, “Let me prove myself. I’ll work for free for now. If you like what I do then hire me. If you don’t then tell me to go away.” True story.

I’ve probably mentioned this a million times, rules are only meant to teach you general lessons until you learn that rules do not exist. Remember back in high school when you looked up to the popular kids? As you grew up you realized that there wasn’t anything overbearingly special about them. What about the new kid in school? Did you know that she was a complete dork in the last one? We’ve been faking it since day one and it would be naive to think that anything has change. Maybe the game has been scaled up a bit but the players are still the same.

One of my favorite professors in college once said, “Computer experts were those who had put up with windows long enough to get used to it.” He couldn’t have been more right. Recently, Microsoft has done a great job of pantomiming the Apple operating system but in understanding the rationale behind the design decisions is where they lack.

I’ve had to put up with Vista because some of the applications that I use require it. If I could extricate myself from the hell that is the latest Windows iteration I would. The root of my frustration is in the lack of common sense. Seriously, I know this sounds blunt but please hire a god damn interaction designer.

If I had to point out the biggest flaw it would be that while copying OSX, Microsoft has forgotten that it is designing software for human beings. The looming ghost of “Clippy” lives on. For example while being logged in as the admin if I open an app the screen grays out and I’m asked to confirm that I want to proceed. Seriously. So nice of you to notice… I clicked on it didn’t I? Sometimes I have to go through two, even three, confirmations before something that I requested loads.

Confirmations aside, not one thing about Vista makes any sense. I find myself telling prospective Apple converts that the hardest part about the conversion is retraining yourself to trust your instincts. Imagine what would make sense and that’s how it works in OSX. In Vista it’s the complete opposite. Imagine the most illogical execution and you’re probably right.

I don’t want to come off sounding like just another Apple fanboy. Believe you me, I started my digital life on a PC and I’ve given it try after try. Microsoft hasn’t just failed me it’s failed its loyal user base. The reason that so many people are reinstalling Windows XP is because Vista is a pretty step backwards.