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.

A friend recently invited me to test Dropbox - an online backup / FTP replacement / cloud computing service. Or more simply stated, a place to store electronic files. There are quite a few services out there like it, but the difference I found in Dropbox was through its presentation. The Dropbox homepage is just a video and a download button.

The other simple principal Dropbox used was emotion and personality to communicate its technologically driven service. I didn’t sign up for Dropbox at first and so after a few days I got an email. The email I received had a computer illustration; my computer was sad It didn’t have Dropbox. Minimal words accompanied the illustration which prompted me to re-consider. It was a subtle cue, but it pulled at the heartstrings to see a computer so sad. So disappointed.

Its interesting how many tech services are out there, how many beta invites I get, and yet I’ve never seen an approach quite like this. An approach that uses human emotion to personify a machine and ultra simplicity to communicate the concept. For me, this is a sign that we’re at a turning point in the tech-service industry, one in which the experience will differentiate the offering vs speed and bits/second.

I recently posed a poll/question on Linkedin, “How do you define the practice of Interaction Design?” The majority of responses used the short-definition as ‘humans interacting with anything’.

I believe Interaction Design has roots in helping people interact with technology (anything with a microchip), but its clear that Interaction Design (or Design) addresses a much broader realm. A practice that must combine various roles of behavioral science and design.

Twitter is a good example of the broader realm Interaction Design must cover. The challenge probably started as a front-end interface (technology) problem. But now, Twitter has become a research tool to inform businesses how to interact with customers. A communication platform between people. And a cultural (and behavioral) phenomena. Closely resembling what Wade Johnston summarized on Linkedin as ‘…encouraging or facilitating exchanges between people’.

Now, why hasn’t Graphic Design been defined at the depths we see Interaction Design defined? I think back on a direct mail campaign in Japan that went horrible. It was for a US-based manufacturer who sent a promotion in a black envelope - in Japanese culture this means a death in the family. It was a mistake forever imprinted in the hearts and minds of the recipients. Did the practice of Interaction Design need to be present to understand cultural norms (family is important, black envelopes mean death) and behavioral understandings (death in the family is emotional and memorable)?

Maybe we just need a deeper way to define Design? Maybe its more about a collaborative process with various disciplines than an individual practice? There are several academic programs shaping the conversation around Design, its various definitions, and modifiers.

Stanford states that they are

“at the forefront of defining the direction of the field which is in the midst of a profound shift.” and “…are developing new transdisciplinary methodologies to address issues such as energy, widespread behavior change, and complex business challenges.”

While Stanford uses the term “transdisciplinary” Parsons recently introduced a “MFA Transdisciplinary Design” with Jamer Hunt, a trained cultural anthropologist, as Chair. Below are a couple segments of Q&A on the topic of Transdisciplinary Design.

“It’s no longer sufficient for young professionals to simply be good at something like rendering or modeling or basic typography, because they’re now competing with people in a global marketplace and often at very different cost levels.” They’re developing a program in which “…students will come out with a portfolio, but it won’t be so much artifact driven—in other words, a poster or a product. It will be more process driven.”

Now, because Transdisciplinary Design is process driven, Hunt contends that there’s still a place for specialized skills.

“It’s not an either-or situation. We need highly specialized people and we need people who can be more lateral connectors…” Where “Designers will facilitate and navigate the process, but we’ll have multiple kinds of intelligence involved.”

So then would Interaction Design be considered a specialty?

One of the original US-based Interaction Design programs at Carnegie Melon states that,

“Interaction designers define product behavior, mediating relationships between people and people, people and products, people and environments, and people and services across a variety of contexts.”

The Austin Center for Design shares that,

“Interaction Design is the creation of a dialogue between a person and a designed artifact - a product, service, or system. An Interaction Designer creates frameworks for behavioral change, on both a grand and small scale. Interaction Designers may create software, physical artifacts, environmental spaces, or systems of engagement; in all cases, the focus for the Interaction Designer is on the creation of a meaningful dialogue between a person and the designed elements.”

Meanwhile, foundational programs like IIT aren’t necessarily modifying the word ‘Design’, but are merging it with the concept of MBA to achieve

“Integrated professional mastery in both user-centered, methods-based design innovation AND core management principles of marketing, project accounting, organizational behavior and strategy.”

Its a complex world and there are complex problems (healthcare!). And its interesting how many people and programs (new and old) are trying to define concepts like Interaction Design, Design Thinking, Transdisciplinary Design, and Transformation Design to address these complexities.

And although concepts and definitions vary to certain degrees, I believe what we’re really talking about is a shift in approach. One that recognizes that Designers will become facilitators of a process. A process in which facilitation is an activity for collective teaching and collaborative learning.

Now all we need is someone to facilitate the discussion so we can figure out what to call it.

Periodically I’d like to share knowledge from my graduate program in Interaction Design. I’ve gained lose permission to share content from readings, lectures, books, etc. (giving credit where credit is due of course).

Below are some notes from my Designing Business Services & Consumer Experiences class (course descriptions pdf). The content was delivered via a presentation by Oliver King, founder of Engine Service Design in London.

A couple beautifully simple definitions Oliver used to set the stage:

Design is a creative process by which economic, social and aesthetic value is first imagined, shaped and embodied in a meaningful and desirable outcome. Richard Eisermann - Prospect - Design Council

Service is the act of helping someone do something.
(Helping children learn. Helping passengers feel safe.)

Some key take-aways:
1) Many business-minded companies focus on the value of their customers in terms of dollar amounts. The practice of Service Design looks to create happy customers, because “Happy customers are worth more”. And happy customers do your marketing for you.

2) Engine created a “Social Innovation Lab” to showcase their process and tools for Service Design. A place where they help co-create and co-produce social services that impact their community. One example was an area program co-created by dads to enable them to spend more time with their children. Here are some of the specific tools in the ‘kit’. (Their Online Project Space sounds very similar to Two West’s Idea Kitchen).

3) One final interesting thing (something our Anthropolgist has been advocating for) is that Designers must do field research too. We must see and experience what users and customers do to empathize. One specific example for usability and empathy was given for an interface designed for the elderly - eyeglasses were sand blasted to understand what its like to navigate with poor eye sight.

Overall very inspirational content in the realm of Service Design.

There are a couple ‘old sayings’ that follow the service principal Good - Cheap - Fast. You can pick any two.

I recently came to the conclusion that I have a definitive preference when it comes to the priority in which these elements should come. Specifically when helping brands or clients solve problems. That order is 1) Quality over all 2) Price in the middle, and 3) Time (cause good things come to those who wait).

Here’s a little more explanation.

Quality : I personally strive to pursue quality in everything I’m a part of, and would much rather see a client cut scope or features to deliver something simpler done really well. Conversely, anytime I hear of a ‘rush job’ it makes me cringe. I understand deadlines and launch dates etc, but many times these scenarios boil down to trying to do too much or poor planning.

Price : I’ve never felt good about charging a super premium price or seeing a client ‘over pay’ for something I love doing. Although, this philosophy could be to a fault; as a Design community we need to make sure we do our part in pricing our work proportionally to its value and quality.

Time : Similar to what was mentioned before, the ‘rush job’ is the antithesis of quality. So for me, time (or speed) should be a subordinate priority and therefore support quality and price. Because it takes time to do things right. Moreover if you can schedule a project at your convenience it’ll keep things out of that ‘rush job’ pricing.

I’m sure there are exceptions to my ‘rules’, but for the most part this is how I enjoy working and have experienced the best work.

You remember when you saw a VW beetle and said ‘Slug Bug Yellow!’ then hit your sibling in the arm? VW is bringing it back with Sluggy Patterson, the creator of the game (only they’re calling it PunchDub and saying you slug for ANY VW).

http://www.vw.com/sluggy/

The new marketing initiative capitalizes on a couple different cultural themes. 1) The age old Slug Bug game that harnesses childhood memories and looks at the game’s origin and 2) Combining a ‘Grumpy Old Men’ style commentary with technology, think $h!+ my dad says on Twitter (1.1M followers and counting) only less vulgar.

It seems more and more advertising campaigns are merging with culture (or attempting to merge with culture) as suppose to just marketing products directly. The visual design of the experience is executed so-so with the poor drop shadows, but the video is certainly entertaining. Overall its an interesting concept and thinking to spot and capitalize on theses trends. But feels like the blog and twitter feeds are a little forced - what do you think?

Passionate debate is unfolding with design purists and business opportunists. Designers say that crowdsourcing logos devalues the product of design, that it’s spec work, and it shouldn’t be tolerated. And yet 750+ designers submitted logos to the crowdSPRING project.

Business opportunists would say that crowdSPRING is an innovative tool that helped generate incredible value for Brammo with minimal($1k) investment. Additionally, that tools like crowdSPRING are an evolution of technology, not a devaluation of design.

There are several solid comments around the debate in this Fast Company article covering the ‘controversy’; ‘Crispin Porter + Bogusky’s Crowdsourcing Experiment Backfires‘.

Overall I believe this debate invokes the question, what constitutes ‘creative’? Many people (myself included) would say that designing a logo is a creative exercise. But conversely, so is Crispin’s use of crowdsourcing - especially during this time of commodization in graphic design and measurable ROI. CP+B creatively solved a business problem for a company with minimal budget, generating 750+ logos, and a huge amount of digital press. They worked within the constraints of the problem to generate value for their client - that’s what they’re in business for. I would argue that seeing the patterns of commodization, leveraging the social web, and optimizing the budget are more creative than drawing a vector bull.

I understand this might not be true to my roots as a visual designer, but I see this more as an issue between design (little ‘d’) and Design (big ‘D’). That (we) designers need to think in terms of Designing systems vs designing visual instances. And in this time of change we need to understand that Designing systems and seeing larger patterns are just as creative (or MORE) than designing a logo.