I get this question all the time. I usually rotate through a variety of responses or share what I’m currently working on for a real-world example. I use to make beautiful images using photos, graphics and typography (or as my grandfather says, ‘graphics designs’). I still practice visual design from time to time. I’ve also been known to build World Wide Web sites.

The team I’m with today is working to show and communicate what we do. Not only for ourselves, but also to the world. And it’s kind of a tough task articulating what (as an experience design group) we do. And at the same what I (as an interaction design professional / consultant) do.

I read a couple things lately (Simon Rucker’s How good designers think, Nussbaum’s Beach Reading — Design and Innovation, Norman’s Filling Much Needed Holes), mashed some of their thoughts together with my own activities as of late. And came up with a set of qualities (5) and abilities (5) that I believe designers must possess to do what they do (of course, if you know me this is a given, I also critically analyzed what I must possess to do what I do).

QUALITIES
1. Have child-like curiosity - enjoy observing the world around you
2. Be ‘T’ shaped - have broad experience, but deep knowledge/experience/passion/skill in something
3. Live in the future - think beyond the present conditions, technology or reality
4. Share knowledge - don’t hoard what you know, sharing encourages others to share too
5. Be good - have pure intentions in research, knowledge, and what you do

ABILITIES
1. Research - understand the unmet needs and desires of people
2. Synthesis - articulate findings into a plan of action, strategy, or opportunity space for design
3. Rapid Prototype - make tangible things fast (by making something, even a crumby post-it note paper prototype, you open up a different part of your mind)
4. Evaluate - is this experience desirable (to the user), feasible (technology sake), and viable (for business sake)?
5. Validate - take prototypes or ideas back to those you’re serving - does it work for them?

You’re probably still asking, “wait, what do you do?“.

Truth is, the result of my (our) work really does vary. Design solutions may emerge as a new business process, service, user interface, mobile app, office layout, or job family. To simplify my contribution, I’d say, “I communicate experiences and possibility through prototypes and stories“. And overall I believe much of what I do everyday hinges on validation - does this experience help the people we intend to serve? And although validation may be more of a process than an ability, it takes a little different mindset to say, “I’m not making this for myself”.

Here’s another piece I recently wrote for The Brand Show, repurposed here because I’ve been so slow to update.

We see it every day:
Retail brands pushing promotions to shoppers through mobile devices in the name of ‘engagement’.

The retailer’s goal is to demonstrate the value of its brand through emotion and experience using mobile. The problem with this push approach is that it’s shortsighted and sometimes annoying to the shopper. In fact, people pay money to remove ads and opt out of messages (or ‘engagement’) just to get them off their device.

Why do people download apps?
Shoppers download and use mobile apps for utility - to help them find something cheaper, to help them find their car, to entertain their kids while waiting in line.

So there’s a disconnect between what retail brands want and what shoppers do (or desire). And there’s a need to help connect or engage shoppers, to meet them where they are. Retail brands need to see mobile more as a utility and less as a place to push a message.

Here are a couple examples of what true mobile utility might look like:

Movie theaters spend thousands to produce spots prompting you to turn off your phone in their theaters. A mobile utility could easily turn off your ringer at theater locations using location services. And maybe, just maybe, the theater rewards you for installing its app. Here’s a free bag of popcorn.

iPhone and Android developers observed people using their mobile device as a flashlight. So they built apps that use the camera flash or screen as a light source. What a simple, purposeful innovation. Now, what if the flashlight app was branded? Or maybe even the LED flash itself? It would raise awareness of the brand, keep it top of mind and build loyalty. How many impressions is that? How valuable is that? Maglite, are you listening?

For the CFO this may begin to sound like a money pit of development (or acquisition) costs and promotional costs. The point is to look past the immediate balance sheet and numbers. To look at ways that don’t just appease the shopper, but ways that boost loyalty and value.

Mobile utility can easily become the best approach to win the hearts and minds of your shoppers. Engage with them on their terms. Why do it? Because happy shoppers are worth more.

I’m a guest blogger on The Brand Show this week - The Brand Show is a weekly podcast (and blog) produced by Two West (The company I work for). The post is titled, “Why Social Commerce makes dollars and sense.” The premise of the article is to help businesses and brands understand how social features can provide immediate measurable value. Below is a copy.
–
Why Social Commerce makes dollars and sense.

A friend walks up and asks, “Are those new shoes?” “Where did you get those, how much were they?” Casual conversations regarding retail purchases happen all the time, between friends at the local coffee shop or with a stranger on the street. Yet, with sites like TOMS Shoes or Nike ID people can share their shoe purchase with the entire world, instantly. But how do you translate social interactions into sales?

The answer is social commerce. Social commerce is the term used to describe collective sharing and buying of products and services. It’s an approach that allows companies to more effectively measure social media’s ROI – which, up until now, was a major roadblock for implementing a social media strategy. Not anymore.

A great example of using social commerce and instantly reaping the benefits (monetarily and promotionally) was the recent nationwide Gap deal on Groupon. Gap sold 441,000 deals with their nationwide Groupon, bringing in $11 million in revenue. The offer brought subsequent in-store visits and millions of mentions and impressions.

Groupon is a social commerce service that continues to provide a source of conversation AND conversion for businesses. Did you catch that? Conversation and conversion. Both are equally important, yet those hesitant to implement a social media strategy often focus too much on conversion. The benefits from social commerce strategy are two-fold. The idea is paying off, and the proof is in the repeat business – 97 percent of featured businesses on Groupon want to be featured on the site again.

Many brands understand that social promotion of their product is worth a lot – and in some cases worth everything – specifically when we look at Pay with a Tweet. Pay with a Tweet allows you to virtually purchase an item by talking about it (online of course). The approach reverses the ideal of sharing your purchase after the fact.

Uniqulo (an e-commerce site in the UK) recently featured 10 products on their site that were progressively discounted as more people talked about them. They assigned a certain limit to the discounts, but understood that the social capital of sharing was worth the cut in immediate revenue.

What do these examples and the overall concept of social commerce demonstrate?

• It’s evidence that social features influence sales.
• It’s proof that results of a social commerce strategy are measurable and the benefits can be directly translated into ROI.

How can you use social commerce to your advantage?

• Assign a value you’re willing to spend to market your product or service.
• Plan either a promotion strategy or a discount strategy.
• Utilize a service or build incentives into your commerce offering that provide valuable value or savings.

Social is currency.

There’s a shake-up in the ad agency world. Several prominent articles have shared that creative leaders (specifically at an executive level) are leaving large shops. These individuals are not only looking for greater opportunity, but freedom from economic pressures and traditional agency business models.

And ironically, many of these individuals are starting the very agency-concepts responsible for pressurizing their creative leadership roles. So, is this a case of, ‘If you can’t beat’em join’em’, inspired innovation or forced innovation?

I’m going to take a positive angle and say it’s an evolution of the tools and creative solving process. A shift where virtual collaboration is becoming easier. And a realization that co-creation with multidisciplinary teams shapes a better solution.

co: is a flexible network of partners. They assemble multidisciplinary teams to execute projects with only the necessary parts for that project.

“WE DEVELOP business strategy, brand story, product innovation and new ventures, using a new model: flexible collaboration with a network of expert partners.”

Victors & Spoils is a creative (ad) agency based on crowdsourcing. V&S recently claimed 1,800 strong in their (virtual) creative department:

“Victors & Spoils is revolutionizing the ad game by leveraging crowdsourcing to deliver innovative creative for less dough and less time.”

A few challenges and opportunities with these example models.
1) These ‘agencies’ were founded by big names from large agency networks. These entrepreneurs have existing client relationships, solid resumes and powerful reputations. Could a ‘no-name’ creative solver come-up in this kind of virtual environment? Could ‘just about anyone’ develop a virtual agency model?
2) Many of these ‘employee’ ties are virtual, How do these collaborative platforms develop and foster a loyalty to ‘the employer’?
3) Companies are tired of ‘over paying’ for creative services. Creative solvers are tired of being ‘under valued’ (there are always two stories). A virtual team has nearly zero overhead costs. A hand picked per-project-team would significantly increase utilization. Will these operational efficiencies drive down cost? Will expert multidisciplinary teams generate a better solutions? The combination looks like a win-win for the buyer, but will certainly add financial and performance pressures to the agency market.
4) There’s kind of a 3rd wheel in co-creation. And that’s the people the solutions are being designed for, or the clients who commission the work. Is there an opportunity to open up the model to them, is that the next evolution? Sites like openIdeo are gathering insights and research - could an agency model use this kind of collaborative innovation?

The saying for several years has been ‘we live in interesting times’ - a cliche saying that won’t go away for some time. Especially as we continue to come to grasps with (a) the economic pressures businesses are facing (b) the social innovations and marketing accountability the web has created and (c) the simple fact that buyers are demanding higher quality (and results) for less money.

Overall, the agency world is being forced to re-invent itself to remain relevant to the market they serve. And the harsh reality is that those who don’t change under these circumstances could easily be left out of work.

I’ve never officially shared a Tweet. And my resistance to participate maybe just stubbornness at this point. I see value in joining in, although I don’t feel I time to dedicate to it (just look at the lack of updates on this blog). Additionally, I don’t believe there’s room to share a complete thought. (Feel free to share how I’m mistaken in the comments)

Even though I don’t officially ‘tweet’, I use Twitter in 2 ways.
1) Twitter as a point of ‘Content Curation’
Credit this term to Rohit Bhargava :

A Content Curator is someone who continually finds, groups, organizes and shares the best and most relevant content on a specific issue online.

So, instead of trying to follow a complete stream of updates, articles, links and photos in real-time. I visit a hand full of go-to curators twitter feeds - A group of individuals that I scan 3-4 times a month (probably something easily done via lists in twitter?). I believe this approach takes much less time AND I seem to find greater value (quicker) than if I followed a large group of people day-by-day, hour-by-hour.

2) Twitter as real-time feedback of a live event (or topic)
A World Cup match, a NCAA final, or a Presidential speech are perfect opportunities to look at a Twitter search feed for realtime feedback. Most, if not all, updates are posted before the participant has really had adequate time to process a complete thought. This realtime-stream-of-consciousness is probably a more accurate view of how people really feel. I look at these gut feelings and reactions help see different points of view and shape an informed opinion.

How do you use Twitter? Do you think I’m missing out on greater value? Am I being selfish by just stopping by and listening in?

Kansas City locals know that Blanc serves up a good burger - possibly one of the best in the nation. That being said, this is not a commentary on their product or service. In fact, I hope to write in defense of that product despite the message soon-to-be advertised on the food network.

Blanc has a great reputation as people share positive stories and experiences word-of-mouth. And so there isn’t much need to broadcast traditional advertising. In fact, below are two TV spots that I believe are actually hurting their reputation more than building it.

spot 1 - soccer game

Blanc Burgers and Bottles

spot 2 - picnic

Blanc Burgers and Bottles 2

The shots are beautiful, well done, and communicate the Blanc experience as an emotional family event after a game and as a romantic picnic. But, those of who’ve eaten at Blanc surely know this isn’t true to the experience. Right?

I’ve eaten Blanc with friends and its good. With family and its good. The inside-out burger can be a little messy. The menu maybe a little pricey (in exchange for quality ingredients). The interior is clean, simple and modern with a bottle-filled bar. And ultimately, the Blanc message is simple: Go to Blanc to enjoy one of the best burgers around. Made with local ingredients.

The attempt to show the experience as a romantic picnic or a way to pick up a ‘convenient’ meal after the game (in the car) is false. The reality is that glass bottles, a fairly greasy burger, and fries aren’t fast food for kids in the car. And a romantic picnic in the park with truffle fries exchanged lovingly with a greasy kiss isn’t accurate either!

Overall, there’s a really interesting balancing act of product and marketing. Some products need advertising to boost their value. While other products actually market themselves. In this case, the brand should be the burger and the experience - marketing should have sat this one out.

“OpenIDEO is a place where people design better, together for social good. It’s an online platform for creative thinkers: the veteran designer and the new guy who just signed on, the critic and the MBA, the active participant and the curious lurker.”

Tim Brown CEO and president of IDEO shares that

“The idea of crowdsourcing innovation is, in my view, still a big experiment. Conventionally the question has been whether the crowd can outperform the internal team. Our view is that small teams are good for some things and the broader community is good for others. The goal of OpenIDEO is to find out whether it is possible to orchestrate a collaboration between the two to achieve better results…”

I just signed up for OpenIDEO and am excited for its potential. Those of you who follow this blog may have noticed that I enjoy looking at crowdsourcing and collaborative platforms. In ‘08 we saw kluster, a year later we saw Idea Bounty (a couple other projects here and there). And now OpenIDEO.

Tim Brown is correct, there are a lot of challenges with online collaboration and it’s still an experiment. One of the main hurdles being the collaboration, one of the main opportunities being the removal of time and place. These platforms must also include a process and system that lands on ‘the best design’. Kluster has shown strengths in the evaluation phase with weighted voting. Idea Bounty skips out on the limitations in collaboration (because it’s a competition), and encourage collaboration outside the platform.

OpenIDEO begins with a noble premise to generate ideas for the greater good. And at first glance a future challenge from SONY and WWF raises the question of true altruism. Somebody has to pay the bills, right? Reading the FAQs helps clarify that “Depending on the engagement level required by IDEO, we may ask for a contribution to help cover the costs of the challenge.”

The strengths of OpenIDEO I see at this point are
1) Enabling the Innovation Process - The platform uses a simple process to problem solving. One that helps translate field notes into ‘Inspiration’. Then by moving Inspiration to > Concepting (idea generation) to > Evaluation (idea selection). Mirroring Bill Buxton’s view that ‘Design is Choice, and there are two places where there is room for creativity.‘

2) The Challenge Question - In my opinion a question is the best way to solliciate a creative response. An issue I have with the traditional creative brief (used in advertising problem solving) is that it doesn’t demand a response. This approach typically provides context and ‘one thing’ focus statement VS asking for a creative response. Reference this video by Continuum to see how they shape an insight into an inspirational question. A question that demands a response.

3) The Field Notes (or Inspiration) - Field Notes help uncover additional insight to inspire better solutions, or to ask a better question. They also show the need to understand the system (or human problem) before a well-informed solution can be designed. Wouldn’t it be interesting if this phase helped re-shape the original question? Quick Plug: At Two West we’ve been prototyping the idea of the Citizen Anthropologist to help us uncover more insight - we call it ESP, or the Ethnographic Sampling Project.

4) The Design Quotiant - Linkedin Answers is a platform where question-askers vote a ‘Best Answer’ based on their subjective opinion (I’m surprised there isn’t community voting). This ‘Best Answer’ is a badge-of-honor designed to display a command of subject matter. The Design Quotient provides a similar opportunity to demonstrate your value, but in collaborative capacities. A badge that could easily be more marketable to collaborative organizations.

5) Innovation Street Cred and More - IDEO has a solid reputation for innovation, and with OpenIDEO they understand that past success does not necessarily equal future success. And with their OpenIDEO venture they will generate lots of intangible value (and street cred) regardless of a direct financial ROI. They’re growing a participant group (recruiting new talent), learning from the experiment (potentially building a proprietary solution behind the scenes?), gaining insight, press, and innovating publicly for the social good.

Overall, like I said, I’m excited for the potential and hope to find time to participate. Try it out and know they’re fixing those beta bugs. I really want to see platforms like this succeed. And ultimately see learnings for enabling and building collaborative experiences online.

http://www.justinpowelldesign.com/V1/
Or very close to it. I’m pretty sure I had a couple KU-hosted versions in early 2000.

Here are all versions since; version 5 is the latest but I really haven’t updated in 3 years (I’m working on it, kind of).
http://www.justinpowelldesign.com/V1/
http://www.justinpowelldesign.com/V2/
http://www.justinpowelldesign.com/V3/
http://www.justinpowelldesign.com/V4/

Looking at these early versions I see HTML tables, meaningless flash animations and pop-ups, and I ask myself what was I thinking!? But stepping back from execution, its interesting to see where things have come. Not just for myself, but for the web, design and visual trends in general. Its also interesting looking through the current trend-lens of ‘personal brands’ and ‘personal branding’. And I can’t help but notice we’re all a product of the industry, market and trends (even though we like to think we’re not a product of trends). This environmental influence seems especially true in professional fields driven by technology and innovation.

2002 (or so) I believed it was a differentiating characteristic to design for print and the world wide web. And in a way, it was break-through to work in both mediums 8-10 years ago. I labeled myself a ‘multimedia designer’, even though my ‘web design’ was pretty much all for looks. I sorted my site by print and web, print and digital, online and offline. I now say work is ‘integrated’. I’ve had a handful of motion projects. I saw ‘ideas‘ as increasingly valuable in early 2005. I wrote confident descriptions (maybe a bit cocky?) of myself. I used sharp angles and trendy typefaces (and ugly typefaces). I used pixel fonts and so-so usability practices.

What stands out as trendy, funny, or interesting for you over the years?

Even though some design elements and concepts trended with the market, some things remained consistent and true. I appreciate beautiful design and technology - or the age-old theory that form and function can work together. I’ve been (and will be) a fan of simplicity and great ideas. And finally, although its not from my portfolio portion, my 10 things I believe (so far) still ring true too.

Maybe it just takes 10 years (give or take) to figure things out for yourself professionally? Or 10 years (give or take) to establish a role where you don’t depend on the eves and flows of trends? It’s easy at this point to look back and say I’ve got things figured out (with grad school, my current role etc). And yet the year 2020 might come along and say those concepts of ‘digital strategy’ and ‘interaction design’ are so 2010!

And so I’m reminded of Bob Dylan’s lyrics,

“I was so much older then. I’m younger than that now”

Or in other words, stay consistent with who you are, but don’t think you have it all figured out. Stay young. “Stay Fresh. Read and learn. Experiment and explore. Never quit pursuing your passion and trade.”

Over 35,000 members and growing rapidly is a facebook group dedicated to the KU upset in the NCAA tournament: Remember when KU choked in the 2010 NCAA Tournament? That was AWESOME. A social media phenomenon and compelling display of convergence theory in the ‘virtual’ space.

I don’t want to get caught up in the KU/MU border war stuff or talk about K-State fans cheering a Kansas loss. I have my opinions, but the discussions don’t go very far. Overall, the primary motivation for the ‘hate’ in the group is that for some reason the KU fan base is collectively seen as ’smug’, ‘arrogant’, and deserving of a humbling loss.

What I do want to discuss is a huge shift. A shift from conversations that typically happen on sports forums where ‘MUfan23′ or ‘KSUcats’ can anonymously post derogatory things about ‘KUfan2008′ (and vice versa). To a new ‘virtual world’ where personal facebook profiles are affiliated with content and groups with the same sentiment. Where a picture of a sad, KU-supporting, child displays the comment, ‘kid gets what he deserves’ from a father pictured with his own child.

These are real names, real people, possibly real professionals. People you work with and potentially consider for employment. It’s a powerful display of ‘virtual’ behavior with neglect for reality. The reality that there are real people on the other end of a hateful comment or classless piece of content. The reality that these actions are on public display with permanent records. Yes, the inter-web remembers.

I assumed the group to be primarily driven by high school and college-aged guys jeering KU in a ‘just for fun’ facebook group. But in reality its a mob-rule ‘hate’ group composed of parents, women, teenagers, and professionals. A fairly clear example of crowd psychology and convergence theory for a couple reasons.

“Convergence theory holds that crowd behavior is not a product of the crowd itself, but is carried into the crowd by particular individuals.”

1) Negative behavior has been on display via internet chat rooms and online forums since they were invented. The primary difference is that this behavior is no longer annonyomous. It only takes a few particular individuals to transition the behavior from anonymous digital platforms to very personal facebook profiles.

“Convergence theory claims that crowd behavior as such is not irrational; rather, people in crowds express existing beliefs and values so that the mob reaction is the rational product of widespread popular feeling.”

2) The existing beliefs and feelings of hate (or rage) were more than likely with the participants for some time. This latent emotion manifested itself through the crowd in what appears to be irrational behavior. And yet, like the definition states, the reaction is a rational product of widespread popular feelings.

These popular feelings of negativity are more than likely a result of history, attitude, and population demographics - another topic of discussion altogether. What we can see is a very clear pattern of real people and ‘virtual people’ being blended. And the participants either don’t see it cause they’re ‘in it’. Or they don’t care and are proud of it. Either way these ‘virtual people’ are part of an interesting behavioral trend that could damage their real-world reputations.

We’ve been reading Sketching User Experiences by Bill Buxton. Which is a lot more about design process than the title implies. Below are some notes from the text. I’ve also included a video presentation by Buxton from the 2008 Design Strategy Conference. It highlights many of the book’s concepts and expounds on others.

The difference between UI (user interface) and UX (user experience) was illustrated via some orange juicers.
Juicer A is electric, but the annoying sound hurts the user experience.
Juicer B uses a physical lever, but utilizes low quality materials and mechanics.
Juicer C uses a physical lever, but utilizes refined materials and elegant mechanic function - it feels solid and great to use. So, although ‘A’ has the same UI as ‘B’, it has quite a different UX.

One insight the book demonstrates is that sketching is the process of design. We use sketches as an internal feedback mechanism, is this going to work here, how about here? Furthermore, sketches are social things - they help provoke discussion, make design decisions and solidify ideas.

But, many times sketches aren’t socialized.

Designers tend to keep sketches to themselves in fear of them not being complete. This is a balancing act with the client too. Is this sketch (or mock-up) too finished? What if they (the client) think something is definitive that isn’t finalized? What if we shared ‘unfinished’ sketches to start a dialog? Do we want the client that involved in the process? We have a tendency not to share the full process of design. Some people may not care how we get to the solution, but truth is it takes a lot of work to get there. The products at the end may look inevitable or like they took minimal effort (think iPod), but designing simple is hard. And the process to get there is what costs so much.

One last interesting item (in reference to the visual above credited to Laseau 1980) is how Buxton defines Design.

“Design is a choice, and there are two places where there is room for creativity.”

1) in idea generation - creating meaningful distinct options to choose
2) in idea selection - defining the criteria in which choices are made

Many times (especially in Web sites) the tendency is to generate all these ideas about what the Web site will do - the site or application is going to do these 15 things. This elaboration tends to be the fun and exciting part. But the second step is essential and more challenging; what (objective) criteria do we use to reduce these ideas? Its hard to cut ideas, especially when there is ownership of the ideas and the client has been shown a breadth of them. Expectations are high and we don’t want to disappoint. But truth is the second part (cutting out ideas objectively) is a creative process too. And the more focused the idea at the end, the better quality the result.