Slashdot Mirror
Tim Brown On Current Design Challenges
prostoalex writes "Tim Brown is the CEO of IDEO, design company that is quite famous for its work on designing office chairs, Palm computers, Microsoft mice, Nike shoes, etc. MIT Technology Review interviewed Tim Brown on current challenges in the design world, exciting fields for a designer to be in, current annoyances in the user interface design."
The idea that people are going to use their mobile devices to do things like watch movies is just wrong. I think this is as the reason that the Japanese i-Mode has been so successfulâ"its applications are very small.
I'll agree using a cell phone to look at movies and pictures is stupid.
However, i-Mode services took off because anyone can easily make themselves an i-Mode application and have it run. Here, I am limited to very expensive applications and only ones that have been endorsed by my digital cell provider. Meaning that I have never so much as LOOKED at any of those features. I'm not going to spend a quarter to send a instant message. I'd balk at a nickel. I'll just call - I pay a flat fee for voice, to a point. Text uses a FRACTION of that bandwidth.
The phone companies want to be in the applications business, and so long as they control the content, these services are just a bad joke. That's the secret of i-Mode.
..don't panic
"Well, one big problem is feature creep. Companies feel pressured to add features, because they want to put a check mark in every check box in the product review magazines"
That seems to be true anywhere these days. Feature creep is at least as bad when it comes to software.
Why expect the network to handle this?
The OS should be able to monitor WiFi signal strength, retried packets, etc., and make the decision to switch to the mobile network automatically.
And a periodic retry of the WiFi network isn't going to cost the earth, in processing or in battery life.
oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
TR: What kind of people do the best design?
/. or any programming sweatshop :)
BROWN: Well, I can tell you what doesn't workâ"and that is to have a whole bunch of people who are deep in their own technical domain but have no interest in engaging with the others.
Heh, good thing you don't find many of those around
Seriously though, this is dead on. Too often UI design are developed by the same people hacking the low level stuff or the business side of an application. At the end of the project, usually 6 weeks after schedule, they have to release what they used for testing since there is no time to sit and think about usability.
Oh, I can't help quoting you because everything that you said rings true
A computer will never be truely user freindly until it under stands plain spoke words and gives us what we want, not what we asked for.
Since most of us do ot really know what we want, a truely user freindly interface is a myth.
The general populace tends to be slow to accept radical changes to familiar things like the way a suburban street or a park feels. They have an expectation that has built up over several years, and things that are different (and often much, much better) seem strange, and are sometimes rejected outright. We fear change. Change is bad. The same is often true for things like community zoning boards (made up of average Joe, average Bill, and average Jane).
I'm sorry but this demonstrates an aspect of designers that I find somewhat annoying. If you are designing for the average Joe, Bill and Jane, and they aren't happy with your designs, it's your fault, not theirs.
It's like when I'm working on a piece of multimedia/website with a graphic designer and they come up with some original concept that the client rejects on practical grounds -- the designer goes into a big huff and thinks the client is stupid.
Some designers always tend to think their ideas are the best in the world. Really good designers design what people want and are humble about it. Some designers seem to think that because they can come up with original ideas they are in some way "brilliant", but there are a lot of people with a lot of good ideas and good ideas are not restricted to designers. As my old boss used to say, "ideas are cheap".
(Sorry if this comes over a bit strong. I don't really mean this as an attack on you personally, it's just one of my pet peeves.)
Reading your post, the phrase "too clever by half" comes to mind. If the client doesn't want some avant-garde artsy design, you should know that up front; if you're overshooting their design comfort level and then having to "water it down" you're wasting their time and money. The problem is, everyone who studies design wants to be on the cutting edge, but there's really only room for 10% (at most) to be there; the rest should get used to working on less exciting projects unless/until they can prove that they deserve to be one of the few who get to do the good stuff. It's the same as in programming - a few get to strike out in bold new directions, the rest earn their stripes by making derivatives or lesser enhancements.
It's not about people thinking change is bad. You only say that because you want to be the one making the changes, and I suspect you'd seem just as conservative about unasked-for "screwing around with stuff" in areas outside your own specialty. Do you use any software? How would you like it if the entire UI changed, just because someone thought they had a better idea? How about if your ZIP code or telephone area code kept changing, just because someone came up with a more "logical" way to assign them? If some traffic designer had the "bright idea" to make some of the streets in your neighborhood one-way, would you just say "cool, change is good"? Hmmm. What this is about is balancing change with consistency. Too bad if that leaves you frustrated because there aren't enough opportunities to do what you want to do.
Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
All the adverts I've seen for 3G devices revolve around gimmics. Ooo look you can watch some video, you can phone your mates and have a laugh showing them things.
Currently 3G is an executive toy and needs a decent application. There are some instances where video calls could be very useful, doctors, police etc. but for the masses there has to be something that makes it worthwhile. Many people are happy with text messaging and instant messaging when online.
As an Industrial Designer specializing in User Interface for the integration of the virtual and the physical, the two bigest problems I come up against is first convincing the manufacturer of the value of Interface design, which is getting easier I am happy to say, and secondly convincing them that a product that is a 'Swiss Army Knife' is perhaps not such a great idea. It is much better to have a product which does one thing well rather than a product that does a million things half assed.
We constantly see this in applications and new technology where the engeneers come up with all this facinating stuff and try to cram it into a device hoping customers will overlook the lack of need and only see the prettyness.
As product designers we are at a cross roads where we are only now starting to understand which services and abilities people want grouped together in a single appliance. This is not limited strictly to produts. We are seeing it in services as well. Things like digital television, cell phone service plans as well as in cell phones and PDAs.
Cell phones are great with a camera built in, perhaps even the ability to take a 5 second video, but there is realy no need for a cell phone which is a video camera, no matter how cool it may be to own one. Video cameras do a much better job of capturing video. In the same way you would not want a video camera which had cell phone capabilities... well perhaps you would, but unless your part of a profitably large enough group of consumers, you probably won't get it.
flinging poop since 1969
The problem with clients is that they usually don't know what they want. They know what they DON'T want, and have one or two fuzzy ideas about some small irrelevent aspect of the end solution. Part of my job is creating GUI's for a large scientific application, and the biggest argument we get into with the client (ie marketing) is over the colour of the damn icons, rather than how you actually access feature x. They key to good design has got to be functional simplicity with useful words like paradigm, metaphor and ergonomics.
What I want out of a mobile device is something which gives me directions to the nearest pub when it hears me say "Damn, I could murder a pint"
And another thing, why are mobile phones generally still things you hold up to your head to use, rather than always coming with usable wireless headsets?
You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
It depends on the funding - how was Salk's research paid for? Who bought the lab equipment, glassware, chemicals, test animals etc? If it was state taxpayer subsidised then the backers (taxpayers, public domain) should get the benefits. However modern pharmaecutical companies invest their OWN bucks (and their stockholders) into R&D to create lifesaving drugs, and they naturally want to recoup that investment, plus profits to plow into further research. They simply cannot afford to invest 500 million into a new drug, only to have some other lab steal that work and simply make the pills cheap.
However, patent holders need to pay attention to their public image - patents are useful up to a point, but beyond that the holders start to look like criminal extortionists. Patenting something to improve a product consumers have a choice in usually works, but people in need of new lifesaving drugs who can't afford it are difficult to turn away. It starts to look like a price gouger taking advantage of a crisis to reap a bundle (like people selling water for $10 / gallon after a hurricane, etc).
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }