Human-Centered, Robot-Driven: Ethical Considerations for ML in Design

Cyborg face, generated by Midjourney

UPDATE 2.6.23—I’ve decided to correctly refer to these systems using their actual technologies (i.e. ML—Machine Learning) rather than the market-speak and false narrative of AI (Artificial Intelligence). The article has been updated accordingly.

Modern ML systems like ChatGPT and Midjourney changing how we design, and how we think about design today and in the future. This comes at a cost. If we’re not willing to play this game right we have no business playing it at all. Below I discuss some of the tools used today, some of the issues we’ve seen with these systems, and how we can work together to have our ML-generated cake and consume it too.

At the end of the article, I’ve listed just a few of these systems already in play today.

What are these ML thingamabobs anyway?

Thingamabob, generated by Midjourney

In a nutshell, systems like ChatGPT and Midjourney can generate human-like output (e.g. text and images respectively). Their models are trained on large amounts of existing data and can generate new, derivative content based on said data.

While these models have the potential to enhance the design process, they also raise several ethical, moral, and practical issues.

Bad actors

A shady character, generated by Midjourney

One of the main concerns with ML-generated content is the potential for the proliferation of propaganda and misleading information. These systems can also be used to impersonate real people and organizations, not only spreading falsehoods but also violating privacy with the potential to cause real harm. Additionally, it raises questions about the authenticity of any and all content, and the ability to trace it back to its original author.

Bias

Unbalanced, generated by Midjourney

Additionally, ML-generated content can perpetuate bias and discrimination. ML models are only as unbiased as the data they are trained on, and if the data is biased, the generated designs will also be biased. This could lead to designs that exclude or marginalize certain groups of people, which is a major ethical concern. A good example of this is using ML to recommend people for a promotion to management. Sounds brilliant right? Remove any notion of gender, race, physical attributes, or ability…perfectly objective yeah? Amazon discovered this isn’t so. Their system was trained on résumés of the people who’d historically done well in those positions in the large tech company. Care to guess which gender dominated at the tech giant? So even without the system being aware of gender, the bias was built into the training models simply because of how things worked in the past. Bias has found its way into our judicial system, mortgage lending, resident screening, and more affecting real people’s lives—and generally not for the better.

Theft

Man in black stealing art, generated by Midjourney

Some artists have gone so far as to launch a lawsuit against some of the ML generators like Stability AI and Midjourney. They claim their rights were infringed upon by having their work (and likely millions of others) scraped illegally by these companies to train their models. 

Without the billions of pieces of work generated by these artists, the models would not be able to function and there would be no tool, but not a single artist has been attributed let alone compensated for the billions of hours taken to produce the original work.

Recognizing the problems

Weapons of Math Destruction, by Cathy O’Neil

In "Weapons of Math Destruction", Cathy O'Neil describes three checks to identify "Weapons of Math Destruction" (WMDs) which are any systems, technologies, or models used in harmful ways, often to marginalized groups. The three checks are:

1. Opacity: A WMD is opaque if it is hard to understand how it works, and if its creators are unwilling or unable to explain it. This makes it difficult for people to question, investigate, or validate the model's assumptions, biases, or decisions.

2. Scale: The more people the tool has access to, and the more it's used, (the bigger the scale) the bigger the risk of the tool harming large groups of people.

3. Damage: A WMD causes damage if it’s used to make decisions with a negative impact on people's lives and if the people who are most affected by the model are not the ones who are best positioned to understand or challenge it. This makes it difficult for people to fight back against the model's decisions or to change the model itself.

Technically Wrong, by Sara Wachter-Boettcher

Sara Wachter-Boettcher's "Technically Wrong" also highlights the importance of considering the ethical, moral, and societal implications of technology.

One of the key points they both make is the importance of using diverse and unbiased data sets when training ML models to reduce the potential for bias and discrimination in ML-generated designs. They both emphasize the importance of transparency and accountability when using ML, by being transparent about the technologies being used, and by monitoring and evaluating the ML-generated content to ensure they’re inclusive, unbiased, and not harmful.

O'Neil's WMD model highlights the importance of addressing the root causes of bias, such as the use of biased data sets, and the lack of diversity in tech companies. Wachter-Boettcher emphasizes the importance of designing technology with a human-centered approach, considering the potential consequences and impact on society when using technology, and the need to be transparent and accountable for the products they create.

What can we do?

Robot and Human Handshake”, generated by Midjourney

Much like the monstrosity that is the image above, humans and machines alike have a lot of work to do to ensure we don’t make a giant mess of everything. Several actions can be taken today when leveraging ML in our work to avoid ethical, moral, and practical problems.

If you’re a data scientist or leader:

• Use diverse and unbiased data sets: When training ML models, use diverse and unbiased data sets. This will help to reduce the potential for bias. This. Must. Be. Done.

• Consider the social and ethical implications: Consider any potential consequences and impact when building generative systems. Ask yourself how a bad actor might use this for nefarious purposes.

• Encourage ethical guidelines for ML usage: Work with industry groups and organizations to establish ethical guidelines for the use of ML.

If you’re a designer:

• Be transparent about the use of ML: Clearly disclose when ML is being used in your process and the specific ML technologies being used. This will help to promote transparency and accountability.

• Continuously monitor and evaluate generated content: Regularly monitor and evaluate the generated content to ensure they are inclusive, unbiased, and not harmful.

• Consult with experts: Seek advice from experts in ML ethics, privacy, and legal issues when implementing ML in design work.

• Invest in your education and professional development: Stay current on the latest developments and best practices in ML-based design to stay informed about the ethical and practical issues surrounding ML-based design.

Elevate artists and designers, don’t exploit them

Bots lift us up where we belong, generated by Midjourney

• Implement clear attribution and copyright policies: Clearly state how ML-generated content will be attributed and ensure that the original creator is credited for their work.

• Use ML to augment, not replace, human creativity: ML should be used to assist designers in the creative process, not replace them. This will ensure human creativity and artistic expression are still valued, and keep humans centric in the process.

• Educate artists and creators about ML: Educate artists and creators about the capabilities and limitations of ML so they can make informed decisions about how they want to use it in their work.

• Encourage collaboration between artists and ML experts: Encourage collaboration between artists and ML experts to ensure that ML is used in a way that supports and enhances the artist's vision.

• Encourage Fair Use and Open-source policies: Encourage the usage of open-source ML technologies to ensure accessibility and fairness. Transparency into the algorithms will help prevent them from being maliciously used.

• Protect intellectual property and provide compensation: Provide artists and creators with attribution and compensation for the use of their work in training models.

ML has the potential to enhance the design process, but it raises several ethical, moral, and practical issues. It’s paramount that everyone, designers, developers, leaders, and end-users alike, is aware of these issues and actively takes steps to mitigate them. This includes being transparent about how the ML models work, being accountable for the generated content, and being aware of and addressing bias in the data and generated content. Additionally, it's important to consider how ML-generated content may impact artists and creators and to work towards fair compensation and attribution for their work. By taking these steps, we can ensure ML is used responsibly and ethically, while still reaping the benefits of this powerful technology.

Sidenote: Not for nothing, the courts are literally still out on who exactly owns the output from generative systems. While OpenAI’s terms seem to indicate users own their output, the law is a lot more divided at the moment in terms of actual copyright.

And finally, it’s up to the technologists to take a bigger role in policing ourselves, and asking whether something should be done as often as we ask if it can be done, as well as how we do it.

Author’s note: This article was written with the assistance of ChatGPT and has a GPTZero score of 268.4: “text is likely human-generated”.

---

Some existing ML design and content systems:

GPT-3 (Generative Pre-trained Transformer 3): A language model developed by OpenAI, it can be used for NLP (natural language processing) tasks such as text generation, language translation, and language understanding.

Autodesk Dreamcatcher: A generative design tool that uses algorithms to generate design solutions based on design constraints and goals. It allows designers to explore a wide range of design possibilities, leading to more innovative and unique solutions.

Microsoft Sketch2Code: An ML-powered design tool that can turn a hand-drawn wireframe into a functional website. It uses ML (machine learning) to understand the design and automatically generate the corresponding code.

Midjourney: An ML-based generative design tool that can generate images and videos based on input like text prompts, or other images or videos. It's used to generate new and unique designs and art.

The Designer's Secret Weapon: How ML is Revolutionizing Web Design

Robot brains connected to screens - Generated with Midjourney

UPDATE 2.6.23—I’ve decided to correctly refer to these systems using their actual technologies (i.e. ML—Machine Learning) rather than the market-speak and false narrative of AI (Artificial Intelligence). The article has been updated accordingly.

As I write this ML (machine learning) is revolutionizing the way we approach UX (user experience) research and design. One of my biggest hopes for the technology is for it to help designers overcome the dearth of creativity in the modern web, creating new experiences that are unique, usable, and accessible.

One of the ways ML is doing this is through services like ChatGPT. ChatGPT is a large language model that can generate human-like text, which can be used to create more natural and engaging interactions between users and digital products. Imagine integrating it into existing sites to replace some intake forms. This can help humanize the web by making interactions with digital products feel more natural and personal, even conversational. Or instead of working to tweak your Google query to find the right website, just ask chat your question in plain language and get the data you're looking for directly.

Screenshot of a ChatGPT prompt to summarize this article

Another great way to utilize ML like ChatGPT is by integrating it into existing sites in the form of support, chat, and even forms. This can help humanize the web by making interactions with digital products feel more natural and personal. Imagine filling out a form that can understand and respond to your input in a conversational manner, making the process less tedious and more enjoyable. By using ML in this way, we can create a more seamless and enjoyable experience for users on the web, making them feel like they're interacting with a real person, rather than just a machine.

Here are just a few ways it's already happening today.

ML can assist designers in creating accessible experiences. ML-powered tools and plug-ins can analyze designs and identify accessibility issues, providing designers with instant, actionable feedback. This can help designers ensure their designs are inclusive and can be used by a diverse range of users.

Blind woman reading with ML-enhanced glasses - Generated with Midjourney

ML can nudge designers to expand their creativity by equipping them with tools and insights to inspire new ideas and approaches to design. ML could analyze user data and behavior, providing designers with valuable insights into how people interact with digital products more quickly.

ML-powered tools like Ando can inspire designers in generating new design solutions through the use of generative design techniques. These techniques use algorithms to generate multiple design options based on a set of design constraints and goals. This can help designers explore a wider range of design possibilities quickly leading to more innovative and unique solutions faster.

ML can work in the implementation of designs by automating repetitive tasks like alternate version generation, layout, and optimization. This can free up designers to focus on the more creative aspects of their work, leading to more efficient and effective design processes where designers spend more time on the things they love, and less on the things they don't.

Mobile app to purchase stock - Generated by Midjourney

ML can be a valuable tool for designers, providing them with new insights, inspiration, and automation capabilities that can help them create more unique, usable, and accessible experiences on the web. As designers, we should rejoice in the future as ML tools become more available (and usable) to create truly unique and usable experiences accessible to everyone.

If you have other suggestions of how ML can positively enhance modern design work drop me a line! As to the negative aspects, I'll need to address that in a follow-up post.

Author’s note: This article was written with the assistance of ChatGPT, with a GPTZero score of “81.4: text is likely human-generated”

Landing page for a window company - Generated on Midjourney by @ToggleWords

Can Great UX Be Novel and Risky Too?

In my previous post Delivering Quality Experiences, there’s an overarching sentiment that introducing novelty and unique behaviors in your UX should generally be frowned upon. I still believe that (within the context of that article, largely focused on enterprise, software, web apps, and the like).

I’ve come to feel that we, the UX community, have been sacrificing experiential pleasure and meaning at the altar of usability and convenience.

But when it comes to the web, and digital media at large, I’ve come to feel that we, the UX community, have been sacrificing experiential pleasure and meaning at the altar of usability and convenience. At least, more than necessary. We have done, and continue to do so, to the detriment of our craft and the continued evolution of our collective digital experiences.

This is not to say that pleasure and meaning can only be derived from a novel, bold, or risky design or experience. But, take a look at the web around you and tell me when last you landed on a page or opened an app and felt enthralled. Giddy? Surprised? Excited? I cannot.

In writing this, I’m not saying anything that hasn’t already been said before. But this is the first time I’m saying it publicly, and wanting to do something about it.

What’s to blame?

Templates
Design templates and libraries are easy, obvious targets. These alone literally make websites look and feel similar. Every time we reuse, repurpose, and revert to existing and common, we perpetuate the mundanity.

Photo: OozleMedia.com

Grids
Grids are another culprit, but we’ve been designing cool stuff for thousands of years using grids (tile, mosaics, mandalas, buildings, etc.), so I say that’s a cop-out and not worth mentioning further.

Screens
Mobile and responsive breakpoints are yet another suspect. To me though, these should be thought of as opportunities for surprise and elegant delight. There’s no reason my mobile experience should have to function similarly or the same as the desktop experience, in fact, they really shouldn’t. Time and money are at play here though, and no amount of argument will change that. So suffice it to say that properly leveraged, device accommodation should be a motivator for exceptional and amazing design, not an excuse to get lazy.

Us
Mostly dear reader, the real answer is us. The UX community.

UX Design—the cause of, and solution to, all of the web’s problems

Specifically, ignorant UX is the cause of all the problems. I don’t mean ignorant UX designers or that UX is inherently ignorant. I mean UX design (and research, and testing et al) that ignores the top of the UX Hierarchy of Needs: Pleasure and Meaning. This ignorance relegates the majority of our output to what Stephen Andersen referred to as the Zone of Mediocrity. Is that where we want our designs and experiences to live? Or, would you rather take a little risk, actually design something new, even challenging for a change, and propel your product into a category all its own?

To those who would argue accessibility prevents them from taking risks, I call shenanigans. Making something work for people with different abilities doesn’t force you into a box. In fact, understanding those with various challenges to traditional interfaces may be exactly the boost your creative mind needs to try something daring and new! We know that mobile-first design can help solve a number of UX/UI issues by helping us make hard choices about how we architect information and lay out interfaces. Accessible-first design is the logical next and better step. When something works for everyone, it will work for anyone! Try it and watch your usability success rates skyrocket.

Yes. Great UX can also be novel and risky.

So next time we run through our processes and procedures, our research and readouts, our methods and our madness, let’s inject something new, something risky, something bold and outlandish. It might not work, and that’s okay. Fail early, fail often. But dare to fail. Could there be danger in the water where we can’t see the bottom? Sure, but it’s also where treasure sits awaiting discovery! I think the greater danger lies in the static banality of a ubiquitous internet where everything looks and feels like a slice of the same bland quiche.

Here’s to the designers who go beyond what and why, and start asking what if and why not!

Delivering Quality Experiences

Photo by Michaela Baum on Unsplash

1. The Basic Design Process

The Brief

We've all seen the cliché memes even if we haven't experienced them ourselves:

Make the logo bigger! Make it pop! Add more sizzle! Make it fresh! Wow me!

And, honestly, we've also seen some sites that do just that, some even do it well. Everything from auto-playing music and sound effects, to parallax, animated gradients, interactive video, even websites that are almost full-blown video games in their own right.

It can feel as if every call with the client begins in a similar vein.

"We're building <APP> for <VERTICAL>. It's like <OTHER APP>, but ours will be different because <POP/SIZZLE/GAMIFICATION>."

We nod our heads. "It'll have dynamic, user-content-driven dashboards!" Yep. "And we want it to work on mobile and tablets." Absolutely. "It'd be cool if we could have some ML and AR involved there too, but we're not sure how yet. We're hoping you can help us figure that part out." Nothing new here. You want it to be accessible too right? “Oh yeah, accessibility! If we have time left, do that!” <sigh>

Research

You do your research. You talk to the stakeholders. You ask hundreds of questions of your client's customers. You unravel the knot of unknowns, and patterns of user behavior emerge. You begin to understand what the business actually needs, and what the users actually need. You rough out an IA and test it. You see the pitfalls in the current journey. You identify inefficiencies and problems, er, opportunities across the service layers. You present your findings. "Yes! You get it!" the client says. We're all on the same page. You understand the problem, and you begin solving it.

Photo by Leon on Unsplash

UX Design

You wireframe. You prototype. You assure the client that, no, these aren't the actual colors. No, that's not English it's called Greeked text. “Why does it look like Latin if it's called Greeked text? Why don't the numbers in those columns add up?” So you replace all the lorem ipsum with real-ish copy and adjust the numbers to make a little sense. Okay, now they get it. No, that's likely not the font you'll use, we're just trying to get a sense of how things work first. Visual design will come later. Okay, they get it. Sort of. So, you begin testing.

Photo by Amélie Mourichon on Unsplash

Testing

Testing goes great. You uncover some problems with the IA. No biggie, super-easy change. You see some small issues with some labels, so you wordsmith those. There are a couple of show-stoppers that make you feel stupid. How did you not see that before!? But you see it now, and you've already got 2 or 3 ideas for how to solve that. Things are smokin! You report your results. It tested through the roof, and you're very confident users will experience very little friction. They'll be able to easily grasp the tasks with no supervision. You've organized things with clear paths. Sequential work is laid out so it's obvious what came before, what they're doing now, and what comes next. The client begins to see how amazing this new vision is. So you move on to visuals.

Photo by UX Indonesia on Unsplash

Visual UI Design

The visual designers kill it. Maybe it's another team. Maybe it's you. Maybe it's Maybelline. They've transformed your usable, utilitarian, efficiency-driven low-fi wires into gorgeous, pixel-perfect renderings of the final vision.

And here's where things can get dicey.

Photo by Daniel Korpai on Unsplash

2. The Road To Destruction

Make it Pop!

"I like it..." says the HiPPO. "...but I don't love it." This is nothing new. We're designers, and this is the path we've chosen. Okay, that's fair. What don't you love about it?

"Oh, I don't know. It just doesn't pop/wow/sizzle/whatever. Have you been to <THAT HOT VIDEO GAMESITE>? They've got lasers, and real-time AR video that places you right in the middle of the screen and when you move your mouse around your little guy runs after it! And when you scroll, it scrolls horizontally, not vertically, which gives it a panoramic feeling! It's really cool!"

Everyone is forcing smiles and nodding...

"I know our accounting platform isn't a video game, but why can't we do something cool like make the avatars move around, or use their webcams to show a real-time view of their face so they don't have to upload a photo? What if when they scrolled, the data grid used that cool parallax motion so the columns moved underneath one another like those cool Miyazaki films? Anyway, all our competitors scroll vertically...what if we laid all our stuff out horizontally? It'd really set us apart!"

Okay - so I may be exaggerating some client requests and expectations, but honestly, not by very much.

The infamous LingsCars.com

Note: I don’t hate Lingscars.com for a number of reasons. Perhaps that’s another article.

Also, I’m not talking about getting the right feedback at the right time. That’s a different issue, nicely addressed in this article by James Cook.

3. The Path To Quality

The Truth

It’s times like these my boss Tim is wont to say

“Effective UX has to walk the line between fresh and novel, and usable. Novel is interesting initially, but usable has to be useful when the shimmer has worn off. We strive to achieve both of those valuable experiences.”

— Tim Doll

The first thing about introducing anything "fresh and novel" is that you've created your own usability debt. By its very nature, the user is being introduced to something they may not be familiar with and will have to discover and learn. If this is a game, or a marketing site, maybe that's a great thing. If it's accounting software, it's not. In fact, in most (if not all) cases I'd argue introducing your own obstacles to clarity and efficiency, not managing to your user base's existing mental models is bad. It’s like tying your own shoelaces together then trying to sprint.

Remember Stephen Anderson's hierarchy of UX?

Concept and design by Stephen P. Anderson

We assume the app will be built to function reliably. Our job is to make it first usable and convenient. Only when we've established that base platform can we even begin to explore pleasure and meaning. If you try to design for uniqueness and stand-out visuals prematurely, you'll compromise your own foundation that your research and design teams spent so much time and effort establishing.

Does this mean we don't try to cross the chasm of convenience and push our apps into the pleasure zone? No. In fact, apps like Word and Excel could really use a healthy dose of pleasure and meaning, and dare I say convenience as well. But managing design and experience at this level gets exponentially harder. Your baseline reliable functionality that's relatively usable is table-steaks. It absolutely has to do that or nobody will use it at all. But if you don't even try to shoot for some novelty, some fresh expression, they may use it a bit, but have no desire to come back. This is one of the biggest problems with MVPs (minimum VIABLE products). When was the last time you really enjoyed an experience or app or site and said to yourself, "Wow, that was a really viable experience!"?

The Product Roadmap

This is why we choose to design and build Minimum VALUABLE Products (I'd also have accepted Minimum Lovable Products). Because MVP is so common though, we don't even use that acronym. We use Cupcake, Birthday Cake, and Wedding Cake.

Cupcake (your minimum valuable product) is what absolutely must ship, otherwise, there's no point. It's important to note here that Cupcake isn't a horizontal cut of the hierarchy though, sacrificing convenience, pleasure, and meaning for a baseline product that merely satisfies at an intellectual level. No, Cupcake products cut vertically up the pyramid, capturing a bit from every layer.

The cake analogy is so powerful, because at their core, all three types of cake are the same. You've got flour, eggs, sugar, cocoa, icing, maybe even a creamy filling and a topper. A bite of a cupcake and a wedding cake are essentially the same experience, just in a less substantial form.

• Cupcake offers a compelling experience

• Birthday Cake enhances that experience

• Wedding Cake is the full realization of the product vision

Cupcake encompasses the things you KNOW you must deliver to provide real value.

Once that core value is delivered, you can begin on some Birthday Cake revisions, adding additional features, functions, dare I say, even sizzle, insomuch as they enhance the core experience of your app. You scale. You are able to handle more clients. But when you're building Cupcake, as much as you want that slick new feature or novel AR avatar experience, you have to justify that it's part of the core foundational experience and nobody would bother with your app without it, or, if it's an enhancement that can build onto the base in a fast-follow release (Birthday Cake). Wedding cakes are the "big show" of cakes.

Wedding Cake is what you envision your product to be two to five years from now, with all the bells and whistles that make Wedding Cakes so much more substantial than your humble cupcake. But all the while, you're really providing the core value in your initial cupcake offering, and getting hung up on fresh trends and unique, fun, and sizzling design can detract, and more often, even degrade, even break your core experience.

Have Your Cake & Eat It Too

To wit:

1. The Basic Design Process

   • The Brief—Effective planning and setting expectations

   • Research—Discover insights into the problems you’re solving

   • UX Design—Design like you know you’re right

   • Testing—Test like you know you’re wrong

   • Visual UI Design—Enhance the experience with brand guides and style

2. The Road To Destruction

   • Make it Pop!—Here be monsters

3. The Path To Quality

   • The Truth—Keep it real, make sure you stay focused on what matters

   • The Product Roadmap—Cupcakes! Delicious, moist cupcakes!

Let's seek to build Cupcakes that span the layer-cake hierarchy from functional, to reliable, to usable, past the chasm of convenience, even to pleasure and meaning.

Once we've designed the thing the users actually need that supports the business' goals, don't let sparkle get in the way of delivering a great, valuable product.

The Race

By Dr. D.H. (Dee) Groberg

Photo by Jonathan Chng on Unsplash

This poem continues to move me to tears every time I read it. It motivates and inspires me to get up each time I fall. I hope it does the same for you.
—Brandon E.B. Ward

I

“Quit! Give Up! You’re beaten!”
They shout at me and plead.
“There’s just too much against you now.
This time you can’t succeed.”

And as I start to hang my head
In front of failure’s face,
My downward fall is broken by
The memory of a race.

And hope refills my weakened will
As I recall that scene;
For just the thought of that short race
Rejuvenates my being.

II

A children’s race–young boys, young men–
How I remember well.
Excitement, sure! But also fear;
It wasn’t hard to tell.

They all lined up so full of hope
Each thought to win that race.
Or tie for first, or if not that,
At least take second place.

And fathers watched from off the side
Each cheering for his son.
And each boy hoped to show his dad
That he would be the one.

The whistle blew and off they went
Young hearts and hopes afire.
To win and be the hero there
Was each young boy’s desire.

And one boy in particular
Whose dad was in the crowd
Was running near the lead and thought:
“My dad will be so proud!”

But as they speeded down the field
Across a shallow dip,
The little boy who thought to win
Lost his step and slipped.

Trying hard to catch himself
His hands flew out to brace,
And mid the laughter of the crowd
He fell flat on his face.

So down he fell and with him hope
–He couldn’t win it now–
Embarrassed, sad, he only wished
To disappear somehow.

But as he fell his dad stood up
And showed his anxious face,
Which to the boy so clearly said,
“Get up and win the race.”

He quickly rose, no damage done,
–Behind a bit, that’s all–
And ran with all his mind and might
To make up for his fall.

So anxious to restore himself
–To catch up and to win–
His mind went faster than his legs:
He slipped and fell again!

He wished then he had quit before
With only one disgrace.
“I’m hopeless as a runner now;
I shouldn’t try to race.”

But in the laughing crowd he searched
And found his father’s face;
That steady look which said again:
“Get up and win the race!”

So up he jumped to try again
–Ten yards behind the last–
“If I’m to gain those yards,” he thought,
“I’ve got to move real fast.”

Exerting everything he had
He regained eight or ten,
But trying so hard to catch the lead
He slipped and fell again!

Defeat! He lied there silently
–A tear dropped from his eye–
“There’s no sense running anymore;
Three strikes: I’m out! Why try!”

The will to rise had disappeared;
All hope had fled away;
So far behind, so error-prone;
A loser all the way.

“I’ve lost, so what’s the use,” he thought
“I’ll live with my disgrace.”
But then he thought about his dad
Who soon he’d have to face.

“Get up,” an echo sounded low.
“Get up and take your place;
You were not meant for failure here.
Get up and win the race.”

“With borrowed will get up,” it said,
“You haven’t lost at all.
For winning is no more than this:
To rise each time you fall.”

So up he rose to run once more,
And with a new commit
He resolved that win or lose
At least he wouldn’t quit.

So far behind the others now,
–The most he’d ever been–
Still he gave it all he had
And ran as though to win.

Three times he’d fallen, stumbling;
Three times he rose again;
Too far behind to hope to win
He still ran to the end.

They cheered the winning runner
As he crossed the line first place.
Head high, and proud, and happy;
No falling, no disgrace.

But when the fallen youngster
Crossed the line last place,
The crowd gave him the greater cheer,
For finishing the race.

And even though he came in last
With head bowed low, unproud,
You would have thought he’d won the race
To listen to the crowd.

And to his dad he sadly said,
“I didn’t do too well.”
“To me, you won,” his father said.
“You rose each time you fell.”

III

And now when things seem dark and hard
And difficult to face,
The memory of that little boy
Helps me in my race.

For all of life is like that race,
With ups and downs and all.
And all you have to do to win,
Is rise each time you fall.

“Quit! Give up! You’re beaten!”
They still shout in my face.
But another voice within me says:
“GET UP AND WIN THE RACE!”

Define Success to Achieve It

Photo by Hanson Lu on Unsplash

The contract said the product required an "Audit log." That was it. The web app for a major hospital chain with 35,000 users wanted an audit log, and we were under contractual obligation to deliver one. Whatever "audit log" meant.

When I say audit log, what jumps to mind? Is it:

• A log of CRUD (create, read, update, destroy) activities for key parts of the system?

• Is it a log of every change event system-wide?

• What does this log data capture? Who? What? When? Okay, what about deltas? What about related or effectual changes?

• How often is this data written?

• Who has access to it?

• How is it accessed?

• Is it just a database, or is there a UI?

• If there's a UI, what kind of visuals are there?

• Is it searchable? Filterable?

• What is the point of the audit log? Is it for security? Audits? Paranoia? Legal compliance?

• When someone is viewing the audit log, what are their goals? Why are they there? What are they looking for?

• Is there any reporting? Are there rule sets that trigger flags or alarms? Where are those managed? Who manages them, and how?

I'm sure if I asked all of you, I could triple the length of these questions. These are just the core, fundamental questions one would ask regarding a feature like this. Well, these are the questions one SHOULD have asked regarding a feature like this before promising to deliver it.

Photo by Stephen Dawson on Unsplash

The budget was gone, time was up, and everyone was frustrated

When the day finally came to tackle these and so many more questions about the audit log, the budget was gone, time was up, and everyone was frustrated with the project. You see, this was only one of the hundreds of features that had been called out in bulleted lists in the contract without any real definitions, requirements, or criteria. Because nothing was clearly defined, every single task was a meeting requiring several hours of conversation between clients, project managers, scrum masters, designers, and developers. Everyone had their own interpretation of what each feature meant, and nothing was written down. Even when there were mockups to demonstrate how a particular feature might function, due to a lack of requirements regarding integration with other parts of the system, even fully-built "done" features were constantly tossed, re-written, broken, updated, and on and on.

The audit log would be one of the worst offenders. This project (that we inherited from another company and team) would take more than double the original budget, and 9 months longer to ship than originally "planned" (obviously, planning wasn't part of the setup process for this project). Even when it shipped, it lacked significant functionality the client had hoped for. Everyone was sad, tired, and spent.

This is a story about setting yourself up for success (or failure)

Photo by Science in HD on Unsplash

This is a story about setting yourself up for success (or failure). The good news is it's not really that hard to do when you do it at the right time. The bad news is it's really hard to do if you don't and can cause innumerable problems, heartaches, cost and time overruns, angry clients, and more. The recipe for success is actually pretty straightforward:

Define success

Set clear, articulated goals

Don't underestimate level/time of effort

Under-promise, over-deliver

Do you want your projects to be great? Make every client happy? Deliver everything on time, and under budget? Fantastic. Those four points are the key, the rest is execution. I don't mean to devalue execution, because frankly, it's everything. But as the saying goes, failing to plan is planning to fail, and all the great execution in the world can't save you from poor planning. Great outcomes are achieved when goals are clearly articulated.

What is the definition of success? This is the first (and often middle, and last) question I ask when we are proposing/planning/kicking off a new project. When we, as a team, are able to clearly define what success means to each of us, we can set up a project that will drive us towards that definition. No matter what state you're in, beginning, middle, or end, you can always look back at the definition of success and see if you're on or off track. When you're done, you can categorically point to the definition and say with confidence that you expertly delivered on your promise. Everyone wins. If you don't have a “success” definition, then it's constantly up for debate and redefinition. Clearly pivoting at crucial times is important. You may find that your original definition lacked wisdom or detail, or maybe you learned something new since then. It's okay to, as a group, redefine success when significant changes occur. What you do not want to happen is that everyone has a slightly different opinion as to what success looks like. When that happens, no amount of expert execution will make everyone happy, and the project will ultimately fail.

Clear, articulated goals pave the path to success

Photo by Courtney Smith on Unsplash

Clear, articulated goals pave the path to success. Now that you've defined your destination (success) you need a map to get there. That map is a list of clear, concise, detailed goals to break down "success" into measurable pieces. These are most often found in the form of BRDs (business requirements documents) and acceptance criteria in stories. For designers, our job is usually to uncover and place these landmarks and signposts to guide the teams that follow behind on the trails we blaze. Virtually every design tool (contextual inquiry, interviews, journey mapping, user study, usability study, heuristic analysis et al) are meant to mine the minds of stakeholders, users and more so we can collectively create specific goals that, all together, combine to form the product or service we're building. You skip any of these steps, and it's like taking shortcuts in the untamed wilderness. It's like telling someone to bring you a rock. They bring you a rock. You say no, that's not the rock I'm looking for, bring me another rock. Ad infinitum. Have you ever been on a project that was lead that way? I have. It's torture. Don't do it to yourself or others.

Slow is smooth, and smooth is fast

“But Brandon!” You exclaim. “All this takes time, effort, and money. We have to kick this off NOW! Aintnobodygottimeforthat!” Bless you, my sweet, summer child. The military has a nice little axiom for just this argument: Slow is smooth, and smooth is fast. This is truer in software than just about anything. Moving fast and breaking things may be fun at first, but it's costly, and we've already discussed what happens to projects that try to function that way. An old boss of mine used to say, “we need to slow down to speed up.” Sounds like The Sphinx from Mystery Men, but it's true. Stop. Think. Articulate. Define. Refine. Plan. Do these things, and your execution will be faster. But it won't just be faster, it'll be better, with fewer iterations necessary, fewer bugs wrote, fewer changes necessary. Spend as much time as you can sharpening your axe so you have to swing it less and with less effort.

Photo by C D-X on Unsplash

Sometimes along the way, you discover the target has moved, or a million other things may have changed, and all that perfect planning is completely invalidated. Did you waste your time? No. First off, one of the reasons you're likely able to recognize that the plan/target/efforts are no longer valid is because it was so clear to begin with. You are able to recognize when something isn't right because you were following a map and you now see it was upside down. Fantastic! What a great time to slow down to speed up! Pause, reassess, adjust plans/definitions/budgets/timelines/requirements et al until things are back in alignment, then execute again with abandon! Slow is smooth, and smooth is fast! Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time and money making it.

Measure before, during, and after

Photo by Fleur on Unsplash

How can you know if you're off course, or if you're holding the map upside down? You know because you are constantly measuring what matters. You measure before, during, and after. You monitor. You keep your finger on the pulse of each element of the project, looking for signs of atrophy, necrosis, and rot. You're also looking for bloat, smell, and itchiness. These are all metaphors we use to understand the negative aspects of projects. I can't tell you how many times someone has said "this smells funny." And usually, they're right. If you're paying attention, monitoring, thinking, measuring, reflecting back on the plan, against the criteria, rechecking the definition of success, you'll spot things that are leading you astray, or are causing your project (and people) pain and suffering.

If it’s so easy…

So if it's so easy, why do seemingly good projects go bad? How did the audit log issue (and that project in general) get so far gone? Well, in my team's defense, we came in mid-project when everything was already on fire, and we just tried to land the project as quickly as possible before we ran out of fuel and/or burst into flames. We saw first-hand what it was like to try to execute on a project that skipped literally every single one of these critical planning steps (and some we didn't even address here). We did our best to move forward.

Looking back though, even then, we thought since it was already on fire, we just needed to finish everything as quickly as possible, rather than, you know, putting out the fire with good planning and definition. We felt that moving fast and fixing things was a better approach. We were unequivocally wrong. I can state with no hesitation that, if we were to go back in time and take on that project again, here's how we should have done it:

1. Pause all development

2. Define the actual scope (success) of the engagement and append it to the contract

3. Write out every epic, feature, story, and task with relative acceptance criteria

4. Require interactive prototypes, not annotated PDFs

5. Updated required budgets and timelines against new scope (success)

Once we'd adequately addressed these items, we could then allow development to proceed. I guarantee we would have delivered faster, more reliably, and for less money.

Now, as you go back to your projects, or begin the next one, don’t plan to fail by failing to plan!

Define success

Set clear, articulated goals

Don't underestimate level/time of effort

Under-promise, over-deliver

Photo by LOGAN WEAVER on Unsplash

Creating ARTE: 5 Steps to Agile Repeated Testing for Enhancement

Photo by Kyre Song on Unsplash

Your boss walks in and says your software/web project needs to be tested with real users, and he wants the results yesterday. Suddenly, you’re faced with a new problem outside your comfort zone: You need to validate your project with a lot of people, do it quickly, and the results could affect the entire direction of the project. So what do you do?

Agile Repeated Testing for Enhancement is a quick way to get the answers you need to ensure your project lands well with your customers. Here is a 5 step guide to help you through the process. 

What is ARTE?

A: Agile. You’ve got to do this quick, but clean. Cut through the red-tape, and get things done.

R: Repeated. You’re not going to just talk to 1 person. You’ve got to make this iterative so you can get as much data possible in your limited timeframe.

T: Testing. Design like you know you’re right. Test like you know you’re wrong.

E: Enhancement. Tune everything until it’s optimal. Don’t cut corners, but streamline what should be done, and reduce or remove things less critical.

Step 1: Kickoff & Knowledge Gathering

Whether this is your project, or you’ve been brought in as an outside consultant, you need to have all the right information to get started. Try answering these questions to curate your ARTE:

• What is the business application you’ll be testing? Be specific here.

• Is it an entire package, or just a few features?

• If it’s available on multiple platforms, will you be differentiating between the types of platforms available?

• What kind of data do you need to tell the final story, and what type of data do the executives think they need? (More on helping people understand what kind of data they need to answer their business questions later). 

Step 2: Participants—Who, Where, How Many

This is critical. You must identify your target population well to get the right data. If you're testing an in-dash navigation system, you probably don’t want a user who bikes to work every day with no intention of ever buying a car. If you're optimizing an app for iOS, you may or may not want android users. It all depends on the goal of the test. Clearly think through who the users will be, where you will recruit them from, and how many participants you need to achieve reliable data. We won’t discuss sample size here, but it’s something you may need to take into consideration. There are times when the sample size is determined more by how long you have to conduct your test, and less by achieving a statistically significant sample size. See the diagram below to better understand how to determine a testing schedule. Ultimately, some are better than none. Generally.

The Math:

1. 40 participants

2. 2 days of testing

3. 480 minutes (8 hours) per day

4. 15-minute gaps between participants

((Num_Minutes * Num_Days / Num_Participants) - Gap = How much time you have to work with each participant

or

((480 * 2) / 40) - 15 = ~ 9 minutes per test (per test participant)

Step 3: Script Writing

It’s great that you know who you're going to talk to now, but what are you going to say? “Hey do you like this feature?” is probably not going to be sufficient. Well-crafted questions are both art and science. There are times when a yes/no response is appropriate, but there are often times where you want to include open-ended questions. Open-ended questions are questions specifically designed for an explanation instead of a yes/no response. They allow you to dig a little deeper into how the participant feels about a feature and give you greater insight into the product you're testing. These are great for your qualitative report. For the quantitative aspect of your report, you will need a categorical variable. A preferred scale to use is a 5 point Likert scale. The participant can rank a very large range of things such as sentiment, emotion, agreement, frequency, importance, likelihood and more on a simple Likert scale. 

The script is more than just the testing questions though. It also includes an introduction, scenarios, and any important disclosures. Are you recording the session? You can include the consent process in the script, or simply a question to confirm the consent is on hand.

Step 4: Logistics

There are a few additional details that you must work out before you start testing. Where will the testing be conducted? Is it a space you own, or a public space? Do you need permission to test there? You need a location that has good wayfinding so your participants don’t get frustrated trying to find the correct location. You will likely need a waiting area, a room for testing with minimal distractions, and appropriate staffing to keep the flow going. The same goes for virtual tests hosted on platforms like Zoom. Getting people to the right room, properly set up, prepared to share screens or devices is no easy task with many participants, and may require additional coaching and written instructions before and/or during the meeting. You need to account for those tech hurdles in your schedule.

You also need to consider what software and equipment you’ll use. Will you be recording audio and video? If so, how? Will others need to be observing remotely? Do you have backup equipment if something doesn’t work properly? Yes, equipment failure and computer crashes can happen in the middle of a testing session. Be over-prepared. 

Step 5: Practice & Revisions

So now you’re all ready to go, right? Wrong. Now you need to do a few dry runs. First with your team, and then with someone outside your team. Test the questions. Are they leading? Are they repetitive? How is your timing? If you have participants coming every 30 minutes and your script is taking 40-45 minutes, you still have a lot of work to do. Get the script right. It is well worth it.

Finally, be prepared for it all to go wrong. We’ve seen people show up late. Show up 2 hours early, even show up 24 hours early! We’ve seen outdoor tests get rained on. We’ve seen on-location tests where no customers showed up. We’ve seen intercept interviews where nobody would talk to us. You never know what’s going to happen, so over-prepare, then be ready to pivot. When the timeline is tight, fortune will favor the prepared

Great, now you know the steps to curate your ARTE session. If you need help with any of your usability testing and design needs, please reach out to us at Precocity. Our team of usability researchers have a passion for improving the customer experience on a variety of platforms. 

I Failed. But I’m Getting Better.

Photo by Paul Gilmore on Unsplash

This hurts to write. It hurts to fail. A lot. I failed hard a few months ago. But I’m getting better.

One day everything is perfect. The next day I’m almost fired.

I worked for years to build a relationship with a potential client. Then one day, that relationship bloomed into contractual work. For three months I got to do organizationally-challenging, mindset-shifting, real-world-changing work with them. Everything was great! We even got another team at the client to do a second project with us. It was then that I got too comfortable. I got casual in my relationship, and as a result, offended someone, and damaged the relationship I worked so hard to build.

I never got a warning. I never had a one-on-one where they explained what happened. I’m literally still not quite sure exactly who was offended or why. One day everything was perfect. The next day I was almost fired.

I was hurt. I was confused. Exclamations echoed in my mind—“I’m a good person! What did I say? Who are my accusers? Why can’t I defend myself? What was the context? This isn’t fair!”

The Villain Unmasked

The details aren’t really important. My boss was able to share with me third-hand some of what happened. But honestly, I didn’t remember the instances, and upon review, they seemed contextually trite. But again, with half a year of perspective, I realize now that the details don’t matter. What matters is that others were offended by something I said. It doesn’t matter why I did it, or if I didn’t mean it. Someone was hurt, and they were hurt by me. Because I am not the victim in this story. I am the villain. It’s taken me a while to figure this out, but, as I said, I’m getting better.

It doesn’t matter why I did it, or if I didn’t mean it. Someone was hurt, and they were hurt by me. Because I am not the victim in this story. I am the villain.

It stings to discover you’re the bad guy in a story. Your brain doesn’t want to process it, and actively works to prevent you from accepting an idea contrary to your own, currently-held biases (in this instance, identifying as the victim). It’s like that moment when, as you watch the LEGO movie, you realize you are President Business. (Yes, that happened to me as well). In theatre and cinema, the best evil antagonists are played by actors who know a little trick: The villain thinks they’re the good guy. I can’t begin to sort through and describe the gamut of emotions I’ve gone through the past couple of months, as I’ve slowly discovered this. It still hurts. I haven’t even been physically able to issue an apology or make any kind of restitution. I’m simply cut off. But again, I have to remind myself — I am not the victim here.

I failed, but I’m not a failure.

It’s a simple truth that as a consultant, you’re less than expendable to your client. You’re whatever the client needs you to be. Sometimes that means you shoulder the failure of a project (even if it wasn’t you). Sometimes that means you’re the target of blame (even if it wasn’t you). Sometimes that means you don’t get the benefit of the doubt (even if you should). You simply go away. These are actually all selling points of why you hire a consultant in the first place. When you’ve never had a client relationship go sideways, it’s easy to forget these facts. I pride myself on my client relationships. It’s perhaps the thing I’m best at. Or was best at. But, I’m getting better.

The fact is, I failed my client by not understanding or empathizing with how they expected our relationship to function. I failed my client by blindly, and unknowingly hurting them with casual words. I failed my employer by failing my client. I failed my family by failing my employer. I failed myself by failing my family. I failed, but I’m not a failure.

A Failure to Empathize

As an Experience Designer one of the key pillars of the Triforce of UX is Empathy. It is, perhaps, the most critical emotional skill you can have as a designer. Maybe as a human being. You must channel the thoughts, feelings, habits, routines, and mental models of the people you’re solving problems for. My CEO has written two books on customer experience. He talks a lot about keeping your clients’ needs top of mind and trying to provide your clients with solutions not just to the problems they hired you to address, but also provide solutions to issues they hadn’t even anticipated yet. I lost sight of one of the critical components of the consultant/client relationship. Clients aren’t your friends. You aren’t your clients’ friend. My role as a consultant is to solve problems and provide value to my clients. To ensure that they feel they get more value out of our interactions and my deliverables than the fee they paid. That’s it. Everything starts there. In the end, I wasn’t able to empathize with my client and proactively address their professional needs, because I wasn’t looking at them through the proper lens. In effect, I’d designed my interactions with the client using the wrong persona. I couldn’t empathize with them because I didn’t truly know them as I should have.

They say the sale doesn’t start until the customer says “no.” Perhaps it’s not much of a stretch then to say growth doesn’t start until a client fires you.

I am sorry for causing any discomfort or distress to my client. I am sorry for the pressure it put on my team to adjust for my abrupt departure from the project. I am sorry for the uncomfortable conversations that were had by everyone surrounding this whole mess.

So What?

I’d like to mention how grateful I am to my employer for not firing me. They could have. Easily. But, once my boss had reviewed all the data, he didn’t believe it warranted dismissal. So instead, we had a radically candid 1:1 where we discussed how and why this all happened, and how we’d ensure the client and project were handled moving forward (under a new manager) to ensure future success. Now, damaging a relationship with a client could easily garner a pink slip, but instead, he used this as a teaching moment to help me become a better manager, consultant, and professional.

So…what am I doing about it? How will I learn from this, ensure that it never happens again, and help others avoid it altogether?

The short answer is anything and everything. Like most of us, I’m figuring this out as I go. The first thing I’ve done is radically shortened the list of topics open for discussion with clients. Work is work. There are times and places for discussions of various topics, and work should carve many of those topics out completely.

Next, I’ve tried to weave a stronger filter between my brain and my mouth. (I think this is something just about everyone can use a healthy helping of from time to time). Not every stupid little thought that blunders its way across the stage of our minds needs to be trotted out the mouth for all to hear. The first step of this is continuing to improve my active listening skills. We have two ears, and one mouth and should be using them in a similar ratio. Perhaps if I’d been a better listener, or even simply spoken less, this all could have been avoided. I’m painfully reminded of the adage “Tis far better to keep one’s mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”

Next is this article. I don’t know what will come of it. I don’t know what people will make of it. It may be the only apology I get to offer my client. I’d like to make amends, and repair any damage if possible, but that remains to be seen.

Lastly, it may simply be that the purpose of my experience has been to serve as a warning to others. Let my mistakes help you avoid making any of your own.

It hurts to grow. A lot. I’m growing now. I’m learning from my failures.‬ I’m thankful for more chances. I will do better.‬

When we’re successful, we worry we got there by accident. When we fail, we feel justified in our self-doubt. But we can’t allow failure to color, hinder, or prevent future efforts. We must double-down on investing in ourselves, knowing we’re worth it.

I failed. But I’m getting better. You may fail. But you’ll get better too.

Here’s to future opportunities, major personal improvements, growth, and most of all, to second chances.

My Impossible List

Photo by Benjamin Wedemeyer on Unsplash

Tonight my family sat down together to create our Impossible Lists. Everyone present (Mom, Grandpa Ward, 12 yo, 9 yo, 5 yo, but not the 2 yo) created their own. It was awesome to hear the goals my kids set for themselves.

We don’t believe in selling our kids the story that “you can be anything you want to be!” It’s just not true. Not everyone gets to be President of the US. Not everyone can be a pilot or an astronaut. Aspiring to be such is fine, but it’s unhealthy to hang “success” on being a Pro NFL player or a Broadway Star when the chances are so astronomically slim. However, we adamantly believe in fostering the belief that setting specific, fantastic, and amazing goals…setting your sights on something that seems impossible (but probably isn’t) is healthy and worthwhile. To that end, we introduced them to the Impossible List. Here’s a video that talks about them.

Part of having an Impossible List is sharing it publicly for increased accountability. To that end, here it is! Hopefully, I’ll be updating it regularly.

Life

Perform live in front of 40,000 people (Boise, ID 12.31.99)

Audition for The Voice (Houston, TX 2.9.13, Dallas, TX 6.23.18

Help raise $10,000 to sponsor a well via Charity Water
Be voted Father of The Year (by anyone)
Perform live in front of 100,000 people
Perform on a national TV show
Raise four kids who accomplish 50% of their Impossible Lists by age 25

Education

Teach at my alma mater College of Idaho
Teach at my alma mater Indiana University

Spirituality

Serve a mission with my wife
Serve as a Mission President
Donate $50,000 in tithing, offerings, and charity in a single year
Read the entire standard works in 1 year
Visit my home teaching families more than 12 times in a single year.

Fitness

Medal in a forms division in a martial arts tournament (Victoria, BC 2008, many more since)

Earn a black belt in Kung Fu (Dallas, TX 2019)

Run a Spartan Race (Kalispell, MT 5.11.13)

Do 100 consecutive sit-ups
Do 100 consecutive pushups
Do 10 consecutive pull-ups
Do 10 consecutive planche pushups
Do 10 consecutive handstand pushups
Place 1st in the fighting division at a martial-arts tournament
Place 1st in all competitions in a martial-arts tournament
Win Grand Champion in a martial-arts tournament
Run a 5k
Run a 10k
Run a Half Marathon
Run a Marathon
Compete in a Triathlon
Compete in a Half Ironman
Compete in the Ironman

Travel

Ærowyn swam with dolphins and saw the Alamo (San Antonio, 5.21.16)

Take my family to Japan
Take my family on a Disney Cruise
Take my family to Harry Potter World
Take my family to Disneyland/world
Take each child on a special trip for their 12th birthday
Take a “Honeymoon” cruise (no kids)
Go into space

Adrenaline

Go skydiving (Boise, ID 1993)

Race in a legitimate car race
Go scuba diving in the Caribbean

Events

Depeche Mode Concert (Boise, ID 12.2.98)

Take Family to a Depeche Mode Concert (Dallas, TX 9.22.17)

Comi-Con with Family as often as possible (Dallas, 2004)

Guest on the Graham Norton Show
Guest on the Tonight Show

Business

Speak at a local conference (Big Design Conference, 9.5.15, many more since)

Speak at an out-of-state conference (UXPA Boston, 5.10.18)

Win a $250,000 contract for my company (Auto Manufacturer, 9.17)

Speak at an international conference
Get invited to speak at a conference
Get paid to speak at a conference
Win a $500,000 contract for my company
Win a $1,000,000 contract for my company
Make and successfully sell a product or invention
Write and publish a Sci-Fi novel
Write and publish a business book

Miscellaneous

Read every book I own
Become fluent in Japanese
Become fluent in Mandarin

Open letter to LEGO on behalf of my 12-year-old daughter

Dear LEGO,

You rock. Pretty much all the time. You rock hard.

Your toys have rocked my world for so long my 4 kids have already figured out that dad will pretty much say yes to whatever they ask for if it’s LEGO.

Any video game produced under the LEGO name gets an immediate green-light in our home.

My 5-year-old boy recently saved up his $10/month allowance for 8 months straight in order to buy LEGO Dimensions (then found it on sale for $50 and was ecstatic). LEGO can even help teach a toddler Dave Ramsey lessons in fiduciary responsibility!

My mom saved all my LEGO, so half of my kids’ LEGO come from my stash of blue spaceships and grey castles from the '80s.

My oldest (the 12-year-old girl) has played with my LEGO and hers for around 12 years now. It’s one of her (and her 3 brothers’) favorite activities. We have big bins full of LEGO for custom builds, and special places designated around the house to display fixed set builds.

Admittedly, it was a harsh moment for me when I realized I was the bad guy in The LEGO Movie.

Then came LEGO Friends. Look — I’m not here to talk about the feminist movement or anything, I’m not qualified. I thought LEGO Friends were kind of lame myself. I’m not into pushing my view of what a girl should or shouldn’t play with or what she should like. My daughter plays with Barbies. And microscopes. And Bugs. And Hello Kitty. She loves pink. And Science. She reads Manga. She watches Anime. And Disney princesses. And Star Wars. She plays AND watches AND listens to Minecraft things.

But my daughter LOVES LEGO. And frankly, she loves LEGO Friends too. Heck, Nerf does the same thing with their Rebelle line (and my daughter loves those too). I’d rather she be like the little girl in the ad above, and not playing with stylized minifigs in hair salons, but building large hadron colliders w/ multi-colored bricks and custom-built minifigs of her own devising, but I’m also not going to stop her from playing the little girl. She decides, and that’s cool.

That’s what makes this letter so hard to write.

Remember when I said my 5-year-old boy saved up and bought LEGO Dimensions with his own money? Well, we (I) couldn’t get enough of all the sweet level sets, so we sat down as a group and picked out all the levels and fun packs we wanted to buy. When we’d picked out what we thought was a good selection my daughter says —

Why aren’t there any girls?

There are girls — see? It comes with Wyldstyle!

I don’t really like her. She’s kind of annoying.

Well, how about Unikitty? You love her…

Not for a game-play character.

I play as a girl all the time, why not play as Batman or something?

Because I’m tired of playing as boy characters — I want to play as a cool girl.

Well, I’m sure there are more — let’s find them!

And so we set about looking for the girls. We found all of them (including the two already mentioned):

• Wyldstyle

• Unikitty

• Wonder Woman

• Harley Quinn

• Chell

• Nya

• Wicked Witch of the West

Aaaaaand that’s it. We looked again, and again, and again — that was it. Of the 44 playable characters offered, only 7 are female. About 1 girl for every 7 boys. Of those 7, none of them were very appealing to her except for Wonder Woman (Nya is so tied to Ninjago — which her brothers worship, that she doesn’t really like her on principle). The store we were in didn’t even carry Wonder Woman or Chell (whom she’d never heard of, having never played Portal — I know, that’s my fault). In the end, my daughter quickly lost interest and went looking for a Sword Art Online game.

Now I’m no mathematician, but I believe close to 50% of the population of the planet is female. Even if only a fraction of them play LEGO games, that’s still a huge number. Is it 17% — the percentage of female characters in LEGO Dimensions? Perhaps, but in my opinion that doesn’t justify such an appallingly low count of interesting female characters available for play.

My daughter had her first glass-ceiling experience on her 12th birthday with a LEGO product

Is this LEGO’s fault? Is it the licensing? I don’t know. It’s not like they didn’t have a pantheon of female characters to select from — I mean, check out all of the 49 female characters in the game itself! From that list alone you’ve got a good 6 more characters who’d fit into the existing levels and fun packs (and have already been built into the game):

Doctor Who: Clara Oswald and Amelia Pond

Scooby-Doo: Daphne and Velma

Ghostbusters: Dana Barret

The Simpsons: Lisa

Yes, my daughter LOVES LEGO. So it kills me that she had her first glass-ceiling experience on her 12th birthday with a LEGO product she desperately wanted to play. She realized that girls were underrepresented. And I watched her as her heart sunk…and she became a little more jaded; a little less daddy’s little girl, more daddy’s young woman — against whom the odds are stacked, even when playing with toys.

I don’t know what this is, but it isn’t beautiful. Perhaps what it is, is pitiful.

Sincerely, and with hope,

Brandon

The Triforce of UX : Part III — Humility

3 Qualities To Seek In Your Next UX Designer

Read Part I here. Read Part II here.

Having conquered the big bosses Apathy and Indifference to obtain the Triforces of Empathy and Curiosity, at last, our hero faces the greatest force of destruction the world has ever known: Pride. If our hero can overcome Pride to at last take hold of the Triforce of Humility, The Triforce of UX will be whole once more...

The Triforce of UX

The Triforce of UX consists of Empathy, Curiosity, and Humility.

In each part of this three-part series, I discuss why I believe each of these are the three most important aspects of a good UX Designer and three questions to ask to discover if the candidate matches these qualities. I’m sure many of you will disagree with me on some or all of these. That’s okay. I understand how you might feel. I’m curious to better understand why you feel that way, and would be humbled by your responses ;-)

PART III: The Triforce of Humility

The Triforce of Humility

In The Legend of Zelda, the evil Ganon seeks the Triforce in order to conquer, rule, and destroy. The underdog hero Link must fight incredible odds to defeat Ganon’s minions, find the pieces of the Triforce, and combine them in order to defeat the much-more-powerful foe. One of the things I love most about the Triforce is the fact that it can be wielded by both good and evil. It is a tool. Like most tools in our world, the things wrought thereby are reflections of the tool-holder, not the tool itself. Additionally, if the Triforce is wielded by one out of balance (i.e. prizing one of the pieces over the others) it will grant them some short-term power, then break itself apart and scatter once more.

If the heart of the one who holds the sacred triangle has all three forces in balance, that one will gain the True Force to govern all. But, if that one’s heart is not in balance, the Triforce will separate into three parts...

 — Zelda, Ocarina of Time

Over time in the Zelda universe, many people good and evil have searched for the Triforce. But inevitably, most were tainted by the lust for the power promised by its possession.

…yearning for the Triforce soon turned to lust for power, which in turn led to the spilling of blood. Soon the only motive left among those searching for the Triforce was pure greed.

 — Gates to the Golden Land

For this reason, in many of the Zelda storylines, Link decides to give up the Triforce once the enemy is defeated, lest he too becomes corrupted by the power he possesses, and become the very thing he fights against. This is why I posit the pinnacle piece of The Triforce of UX is Humility. The same is true in UX.

When considering a UX candidate, ask yourself some questions:

Does the candidate want to build up others, or themselves? Are they seeking to impose their will, or to establish balance in the team? Do they use their position as a weapon, or a binding agent?

Or, is this another hot shot MY Experience designer? (A UX Designer without the U is a MyX Designer). Is this person always right? Is it their way or the highway? How do they deal with criticism or critique? What happens when a junior developer tells them their design sucks and she found a better way? Humility in design isn’t new. Google it.

3 Humble Questions For Candidates

1. Tell me about a time when you were wrong. or — Tell me about a time when you failed.

I’ve been here. We all have. Sometimes we get it wrong. It sucks. What you’re looking for here is the introspection — the comprehension to know they’ve made a mistake and the courage to discuss it openly. Are they humble enough to admit they’ve made a mistake then take action to rectify it? As leaders we don’t want to be alpha-buffalo, our herds following blindly. You need to be able to trust each other and know that when things go awry you’ve built a team that will put out the fire then tell you about it, rather than call you in a panic asking what they should do. The ability to recognize one’s own mistakes is key in design. Only then are we able to subordinate our wills and desires for the greater good of the product.

Is this candidate humble enough to accept they’ve made a mistake? That they’re wrong? How will they react when you tell them they’ve messed up and need to redo all of their work? Are they able to see the wisdom in others’ opinions and self-introspect? Can they take criticism, learn from it, and use it as a tool for growth into something better than they were before?

Prototype like you know you’re right, test like you know you’re wrong.

There’s a saying based on a line by Robert I. Sutton to “Fight like you know you’re right, listen like you know you’re wrong.” I love it. I’ve heard it extended to UX Design thusly: “Prototype like you know you’re right, test like you know you’re wrong.” Surely there’s a healthy hubris in every designer. There has to be really. How else does someone look at something and say “I can do better than that!” or “Look at this thing I made! Isn’t it lovely!?” There is a lot of one’s self that gets imbued in the things we design — because we think or know we’re doing it right. But when it comes to testing a design with users, stakeholders, and ourselves, without humility the designer will be incapable of discerning what they did right from wrong. What is really working and what is really broken?

How it feels to watch a user test your product for the first time.#UX pic.twitter.com/IwcqECciFN

— Jonathan Shariat (@DesignUXUI) March 13, 2015

The struggle is real. Does this UX candidate have the humility to figure out how to help that user?

Every person you meet knows something you don’t.

 — Bill Nye

Confidence is also incredibly important in a designer. They have to stand up in meetings, present, defend, and often fight for what they know is right. All of this requires a bit of pride in one’s work. However, like Zelda said if “…one’s heart is not in balance, the Triforce will separate into three parts…”. Without the balance of humility, a designer eventually stands alone and apart from the team. Empathy is supplanted by Apathy, and Curiosity by Indifference. Every person a designer interacts with has something to teach them. Humility is the key to helping a designer continue learning, and growing, even when they’ve done great things in the past. It’s also the key to binding their teammates together into an elite team capable of designing and building great things. It also takes great confidence to admit when you’re wrong.

2. A developer calls you over to their desk to show you how they implemented your design, but they’ve made some significant changes. What do you do?

If you’ve never been here, too bad. I’ve had the opportunity to work with some great developers. On more than one occasion I’ve had this exact experience. The first time it happened I thought “Oh great, the lazy dev didn’t want to take the time to execute my designs properly, now they’re going to ask me to sign off on their poor excuse for a UI.” In all honesty, sometimes that happens. But when you work with really great people often they’re about to blow your mind. I remember one such case where Jeff “Sharpie” Sharp called me over to his desk. “Now, I didn’t build this the way you designed it. Well actually I did and well, it sucked, so I did it this way instead and I want to show you why it’s better.” (I may be paraphrasing, but I’m pretty sure that’s what he said verbatim :-P) “Okaaaaayyyy…” I said. Then Sharpie proceeded to show me how, when actually implemented, what I’d designed, while valid in the prototype, didn’t function that way in the real world. After playing with it for a bit, he’d figured out a way to fix my design, and came up with a better approach. We walked through the InVision prototype I’d made, then through his approach. Sharpie’s was better. “Wow!” I said, “That’s way better. I like what you did. Let’s stick with that. I think the users will really appreciate that flow.” And we went on with our day.

Other times it went the other way, of course with fewer senior developers. (Sharpie has the good fortune of never being wrong). I might’ve responded with, “Well, I see why you’d think that. Honestly, that was one of the ways I’d originally solved the problem, but when we tested with users we found these problems with that approach. So I really need you to do it the way it was originally designed. It tested well and solves these other problems you hadn’t considered in these ways. But I really appreciate that you’re fighting for the user! It’s really important to me that you care about the UX of our product too.”

What you’re seeking in this question is how they react when people move their cheese. Do they freak out? Do they get defensive? Are they inextricably intertwined with their designs, unable to let go? Are they pushovers, bending at the whim of every critique? The latter is not humility, it’s subservience. You absolutely do not want a “Yes-Man” for a designer. There’s a big difference between admitting you’re wrong and cowing to everyone for fear of offense or antagonism.

True humility is not thinking less of yourself; it is thinking of yourself less.

 — C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

3. You know you’re right. You have the data and evidence to support your position, but the primary stakeholder just doesn’t like it and wants something else you know is wrong. What do you do?

I have yet to be on a project where everyone agrees about everything. How will this candidate take it when the lack of humility (or sometimes intelligence) in another will adversely affect the project? Is every hill worth dying for to them? Do they pick their battles? How do they decide what’s worth fighting for, and what’s not? Do they have the necessary skills to teach without being condescending? Can they lead from the shadows? How well do they function when the conversation goes crucial?

This is something I really struggle with. I’ve been on a project where the stakeholder insisted on a feature I was convinced was not just frivolous and ultimately not useful, but damaging to the project timeline. But I was so new at the time, I just rolled with it, and put up no resistance (can you say “yes-man?”). Team morale suffered because nobody wanted the feature. It took months to properly implement. I had developers I led who refused to touch it, outright unassigning themselves from related tasks, bugs, and stories. When we finally launched, it was a huge sales talking point. It helped sell the product like nothing else. That big increase in sales led to our acquisition. People made bank in part because of that silly feature nobody wanted. The stakeholder was right, I was wrong.

More painful though, is when ultimately, you were right, they were wrong, and the project suffered or failed because of it. How will they avoid this situation? How will they handle it when they’ve planted a flag on a hill to die for, fought the good fight, and ultimately lost? What happens next?

One of my previous clients and I had a large disagreement on the tone of the language in the application. After researching, studying, and testing competing and related products I felt we needed a light-hearted, warm/fuzzy approach to the language to contrast the cold, hard numbers of the accounting platform. Other products did it to great success. It matched what I know of HCI and could’ve been a great competitive advantage. We designed it. We demoed it. The CEO/Owner hated it. We educated. We held meetings. We preached. He listened. In the end, he still hated it, and wanted the language to be “professional.” We plead. We argued. The gavel fell, and the language was sanitized. I felt defeated. I felt like a failure. I took a step back and looked at the big picture. Interestingly, this was largely the only time in two years I’d failed to convince the client to do it my way. One hill in the mountain range of UX-wins we’d been able to get implemented. The product wouldn’t fail because its language was bland. The client would be okay. I would be okay. In retrospect, I should’ve acquiesced earlier, but my ego got in the way. I was used to the client just following my lead, and the one time our opinions differed, I got defensive. Humility is really, really hard. But this is how we learn, and ultimately grow from good designers to great.

Link Looks Back

The Triforce of UX

Looking back at our journey, I’m confident that if we can find designers who can effectively Empathize, are Curious to a fault, and Humble enough to know it we’ll be able to build amazing teams capable of innovative, and user-friendly products. Your UX designer is the hub of your product team. They must be willing and able to coexist and flourish among diverse personalities and contrasting, sometimes conflicting goals.

I hope you find value in applying The Triforce of UX when hiring your next UX designer. Might I also suggest we designers and leaders all seek to be a bit more empathetic, curious, and humble? I’d like to end this series with a quote from one of the great creative leaders of our time. I’ve substituted “designer” for “manager/leader”, as I believe his message is applicable to all:

I believe the best [designers] acknowledge and make room for what they do not know — not just because humility is a virtue but because until one adopts that mindset, the most striking breakthroughs cannot occur. I believe that [designers] must loosen the controls, not tighten them. They must accept risk; they must trust the people they work with and strive to clear the path for them; and always, they must pay attention to and engage with anything that creates fear. Moreover, successful [designers] embrace the reality that their models may be wrong or incomplete. Only when we admit what we don’t know can we ever hope to learn it.” 

 — Ed Catmull, Creativity, Inc.

Read Part I here. Read Part II here.

The Triforce of UX : Part II — Curiosity

3 Qualities To Seek In Your Next UX Designer

Read Part I here. Read Part III here.

When last we saw our intrepid hero, he had unearthed the first foundational Triforce of UX: Empathy. Next, he must face the void in order to discover the next, but equally powerful Triforce of Curiosity.

The Triforce of UX

The Triforce of UX consists of Empathy, Curiosity, and Humility.

In each part of this three-part series, I discuss why I believe each of these are the three most important aspects of a good UX Designer and three questions to ask to discover if the candidate matches these qualities. I’m sure many of you will disagree with me on some or all of these. That’s okay. I understand how you might feel. I’m curious to better understand why you feel that way, and would be humbled by your responses ;-)

PART II: The Triforce of Curiosity

The Triforce of Curiosity

In The Legend of Zelda, as in most games — nay, life! you begin with precious little. You acquire new relics, tools, weapons, and knowledge as you seek out and discover hidden treasures. Like a cheap box of crappy chocolates, you never know what’s inside! But unlike crappy chocolates, discovery of something new and strange is actually a good thing! The same is true in UX.

When considering a UX candidate, ask yourself some questions:

Does the candidate want to get into the heads, and hearts of the users/developers/stakeholders? Do they foster a healthy nature of inquiry? Do they harbor a desire to always be learning something new?

Or, is this another hot shot MY Experience designer? (A UX Designer without the U is a MyX Designer). Do they think their experience, knowledge, and anecdotal evidence will be “enough” to develop this project? Are you about to hire someone who thinks they’ve learned all they need to know and need go no further?

All artists are willing to suffer for their work. But why are so few prepared to learn to draw?

 — Banksy

[embed]https://twitter.com/MrAlanCooper/status/714458052091445248[/embed]

When we think we know, we cease to learn.

— Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan

Without a deep-seated desire to empty our cups and fill them anew again and again we ossify; become stagnant knowers of history. You want to hire builders of the future. Because…

I think the other half is split between red and blue lasers

…and only half. The best designers provide the best solutions to the problem context. They can do this because they know what the actual problems are. They know the problems because they asked the right questions of the right people at the right times. They asked the right questions because they did their research. They researched because they were curious to find the actual problems. They were curious to find the actual problems because they wanted to find the best solutions. They wanted to find the best solutions because they felt empathy for the users. They sought empathy because they were humble, and were curious to see if there was something new to discover.

3 Curious Questions For Candidates

1. What inspires you?

Nobody wants an uninspired designer. It’s kind of our core competency — to be inspired! Often we use the words inspired and creative interchangeably. “That was a creative solution! That design is inspired!” A lot of people think inspiration and creativity are always epiphanies or original inventions. Sometimes that’s true…maybe. But the bulk of inspiration comes from the intuitive connection of disparate thoughts, ideas, images, and patterns. You acquire the bits of information as knowledge. Your experience helps you connect those bits of information.

Riffing off a great visual by Hugh MacLeod

These connections help us better understand how our world is put together. They also give us insights into how we might solve a problem in a way that’s never been done before. But in my experience, more often than not, inspiration has come when I’ve discovered that the super-complex problem I’ve been looking at has already been solved incredibly well (sometimes by me in the same project), I just couldn’t see before that the problems were related or the same. At that point, you feel a bit silly — it all seems so clear, so obvious. But this is hindsight bias, and what really just happened was inspiration!

Creativity is just connecting things. When you ask creative people how they did something, they feel a little guilty because they didn’t really do it, they just saw something. It seemed obvious to them after a while. That’s because they were able to connect experiences they’ve had and synthesize new things. And the reason they were able to do that was that they’ve had more experiences or they have thought more about their experiences than other people. Unfortunately, that’s too rare a commodity. A lot of people in our industry haven’t had very diverse experiences. So they don’t have enough dots to connect, and they end up with very linear solutions without a broad perspective on the problem. The broader one’s understanding of the human experience, the better design we will have.

 — Steve Jobs, WIRED, February, 1996

When you ask your candidates about what inspires them, you’re delving into their knowledge and knowledge-mapping experience. How deep is their well of experiences? How diverse? Are they a spread-thin generalist — a mile wide and an inch deep? Are they laser-focused specialists — an inch wide and a mile deep? Are they something in between? You might want one, or both, or a hybrid. That all depends on you, your project, and your team. Ask follow-up questions about the breadth and depth of their knowledge and experiences.

Use their résumé, portfolio, website, Twitter bio, LinkedIn recommendations, whatever you have, to guide you to probing questions regarding past experiences, and projects. How did they gain the knowledge they have? What urges them onward to acquire new knowledge? How have they applied seemingly unrelated bits of knowledge in meaningful ways? Can they connect the dots?

“Wait, wait, wait!” you say! “Brandon: first you basically inferred that a designer relying on their knowledge and experience was a bad thing! Now you’re saying that’s where inspiration comes from!? Which is it?”

Old knowledge is helpful, but new knowledge will be the key that unlocks the best solutions for new problems.

Great question! I’m glad you asked. The difference is really about context. In the Steve Jobs quote above he said “…a lot of [designers] haven’t had very diverse experiences.” and therefore “…they end up with very linear solutions.” I interpret his remarks to mean not that they aren’t knowledgeable, but that the scope of their knowledge leads them to rote, banal, or possibly incorrect solutions. By doing new research, new reading, and new learning, (you could also substitute new for different) we diversify and gain knowledge about the current problem in its current context with the current user base. Old knowledge is helpful, but new knowledge will be the key that unlocks the best solutions for new problems.

Microbot from Big Hero 6

This clip from Big Hero 6 is the perfect example. Remember that Callaghan invented the tech for Hiro’s battle bot. Hiro had already invented his battle bot leveraging that tech. All Hiro needed was a “new angle” to be able to see another, radical application of that same idea — the microbot. (If you haven’t seen BH6, you should. It’s awesome. Thanks to my two-year-old and five-year-old, I’ve seen it probably 50 times, and still like it)

2. Are you involved with online/local/national/global UX communities? In what ways?

Depending on where your company is based geographically, and the candidate’s personality type, they may only have interacted with other UX designers via books, forums, or websites. That’s okay. What you’re trying to determine is if this candidate operates in a vacuum or if they seek new learning and insights from their peers, mentors, and industry leaders. The medium isn’t as important as their involvement.

Storytime!

UX has been around for a very long time. Much longer than you might think. There is no shortage of available information on the subject. But that didn’t keep me from not knowing anything about it! I was one of those earnest seekers of knowledge only kept from the truth because I knew not where to find it. I first learned of the terms Interaction and User Experience design from a recruiter. She cold-called me and said I was perfect for a lead UX role at a hot startup in Seattle. Delightful! But I was a bit befuddled — how could I be qualified for a role let alone a Lead role if I’d never heard of that role? She’d read my LinkedIn profile and surmised that based on my experience with various technologies and roles I’d be a good fit for a UX position. She was right! I researched the field, discovered that this weird hybrid dev-igner I’d been trying to be for the last 7 years was actually a legitimate field. I took the job. Then I got to learning! I read The Inmates are Running The Asylum, About Face, The Design of Everyday Things, Don’t Make Me Think, and Rocket Surgery Made Easy. I immersed myself in the field’s literature determined to hone my skills.

These books (and many more) are only one way to be involved in the community. I didn’t know it at the time but there were local, national, and global conferences dedicated to helping people like me grow. As I learned of each event I found new ways to rekindle my curiosity, learn, grow, and be inspired by my peers and mentors.

When the student is ready, the teacher will appear.

Speaking of mentors…does the candidate have one? More than one? Who are they? How often do they meet, and what do they discuss? If they don’t have at least one, why not? What are their career aspirations? (This will help you determine how hungry they are for knowledge and industry participation outside of their day-to-day, in addition to their drive and motivations.) Do they attend meetups? Which ones? When was the last one? What did they learn? Do they ever speak at these events? Are they finding ways to get involved? (Additionally — ask yourself if you’re providing the means and motivation in your own company to encourage your people to learn, grow, and get involved).

A lot of the public, large-group stuff (conferences, meetups, happy-hours) can be intimidating or just flat-out a non-starter with some personalities. Don’t let that sway you. There are numerous, individual ways people can be involved — writing blogs and articles, discussing ideas on IxDA and Stack Overflow, or like me when I first started — reading. Your goal here is to discover not just how they’re engaging with the community, but that they’re engaging. Your endgame is to discern how and when they learn, or if they seek learning and growth at all.

3. When was the last time you learned something new? What was it? Who/what taught you? How did it change you?

This last question is pretty straightforward. Are they continuously and consciously learning? Are they the eyes-wide-open, fresh-off-the-boat, giddy-as-a-school-kid, voraciously curious type? Are they the staunch, know-it-all, set-in-their-ways, tenured professor type? Did they read something this morning that got them thinking about something at work in a new way? Was it so long ago that the knowledge is now old-hat or irrelevant? What changes did they make in their habits/life/practice/thought-processes based on this new knowledge?

A fool uttereth all his mind: but a wise man keepeth it in till afterwards.

 — Proverbs 29:11

Give them a few minutes to formulate a response. Since we don’t have parents cornering us at the dinner table every night asking “So, what did you learn today, hmmmm?” it’s not one of those things we tend to think about regularly. Additionally for some, learning and being curious about the world around them may be so second-nature that they don’t even think of it as anything relevant. They just do it. Give them a chance to introspect. The ability to respond quickly, thinking on one’s feet is important, but so is the ability to stop, and really dig deep (see Proverb above). As an interviewee I’ve appreciated the times when the interviewer set the bar by saying things like “take your time” and “it’s okay to think about this for a minute or so — I really want your best answer here”. I’ve even had an interviewer say “Take the next two minutes to think about my next question, then respond.” This meaningful break can give you both an opportunity to stop and take a breath — to connect to the deeper thoughts and memories without the pressure of an immediate response. If the candidate seems uncomfortable with the silence, you can even excuse yourself for a bit “I’m going to step out for a minute or so while you collect your thoughts — would you like some water?”

You can also use this as an opportunity to see how the candidate formulates deeper, more complex ideas. In effect, you’re asking them to connect the dots on their experiences to lead to a creative insight for this interview question. You’re probing for inspiration! Given the additional time allowed, you’re looking for something deeper than their patent responses. Did they use the time to formulate something meaningful? Did they delve deeper and discover something, perhaps even new to them on the spot? Did they learn anything from this experience?

I hope you’ve enjoyed Part II of our foray into the Triforce of UX. Stay tuned for Part III: The Triforce of Humility. Please comment, and respond! I’m really curious how the community feels about the questions I chose and why. Do you have any that are better? Please share!

What separates the good designers from the great?

Read Part I here. Read Part III here.

The Triforce of UX : Part I — Empathy

3 Qualities To Seek In Your Next UX Designer

The Triforce

Preface

After 2 awesome years with Improving, I took a leap of faith and joined Precocity. Leaving my former employer also meant leaving my client. It was one of those rare golden client/consultant relationships; it felt like we’d worked together for ages and were always on the same wavelength. Upon my departure, the client wanted to hire an in-house user experience (UX) designer that could meet or exceed the relationship we’d had. They contacted me and asked 2 key questions:

What three skills would you place as most important for a UX Designer?

How you might phrase some interview questions to validate a candidate actually has those skills?

Having both interviewed and been interviewed for UX positions many, many times over the years I must shamefully concede that I’d never actually asked myself those questions. As I began to answer those questions (now more for myself than the client) I realized I had incredibly strong opinions on this subject. Then as I began to compile my thoughts a friend of mine asked me the exact same questions but from the candidate’s point of view. Thus this 3 part series was born.

The Triforce

What geek worth their salt can be asked to codify anything in 3 parts and not liken it to The Triforce?

The Triforce is one of the most iconic symbols in video game lore. In Nintendo’s The Legend of Zelda, it’s an omnipotent sacred relic. Each triangle represents a Triforce all of which make up The Triforce when combined. In the game, they represent Power, Wisdom, and Courage.

While admirable all, in answer to my client and friend I believe The Triforce of UX consists of Empathy, Curiosity, and Humility.

The Triforce of UX

In each part of this three-part series, I discuss why I believe each of these are the three most important aspects of a good UX Designer and three questions to ask to discover if the candidate matches these qualities. I’m sure many of you will disagree with me on some or all of these. That’s okay. I understand how you might feel. I’m curious to better understand why you feel that way, and would be humbled by your responses ;-)

Read Part II here. Read Part III here.

PART I: The Triforce of Empathy

The Triforce of Empathy

In The Legend of Zelda, your health is measured in little hearts. The more hearts you have the more health you have, the stronger you are, the longer you’ll live, the longer you’ll last in battle. The same is true in UX.

When considering a UX candidate, ask yourself some questions:

Does the candidate know how to get into the heads, and hearts of the users/developers/stakeholders? Can they walk a mile in their shoes?

Or, is this some hot-shot MY Experience designer? (A UX Designer without the U is a MyX Designer). Do they think the answers to all of their questions lie in their own background, knowledge, and experience? Do they cloister themselves atop Mount Sinai then descend bearing the stone mockups from on high with God’s Gift to Software®, or are they sitting at the feet of the people who will actually use the software, studying them? Are they trying to discern what the users’ and business’ problems are, and how the customers might more easily accomplish their goals?

This is what I mean by empathy. It’s also not just for the users. The best designers are good negotiators, mediators, and bridge-builders. If each member of the business, development, and user pool are the spokes of a wheel, the UX designer is the hub around which these things turn. They bind disparate parts into a functional whole with a centered and unified focus. They don’t make enemies, they make allies. They build relationships of trust and accountability. Everyone needs to be able to trust the UX designer, and feel free and encouraged to come to them with the gnarliest of their problems.

When designing solutions the best UX designers will be juggling all of the research and notes from all of those involved trying to come up with the solution that fits the customer first then all others accordingly.

3 Empathy Questions For Candidates

1. What’s your primary goal as a UX Designer?

After all the chit-chat, ice-breaking, and weather talk, open here. We want to discover if this candidate’s mental model of UX aligns with yours. Their answer to this question (and how quickly they respond) could help save both of you an hour wasted. If you don’t sync here there’s not much reason to continue the conversation.

The answer I’m looking for speaks to making people rock stars at their jobs/tasks/etc. while balancing the needs of the business, and the realities of the humans involved in the process of making it. I want to know that they’re as passionate about creating amazing experiences for humans as I am. Basically, do our UX visions align at the macro level?

Listen for the order they rank items as they sift through their responses. They may never have voiced this verbally so give them some time to collect their thoughts and the freedom to rearrange. They might first mention developers and last the users; get them to clearly rank-order their responses after the fact.

1. In terms of importance, for me, they need to first focus on the end-users. It is after all the U in UX.

2. Next, do they care about shipping the product the client or business actually wants? Can they speak to helping the business steer clear of pitfalls and mistakes using their expertise and position to guide the business to the best possible version of their vision?

3. Lastly, but never least, do they care about the humans that will actually build it? Are they cognizant they may be asking people to give up time with their families and friends to build some lofty, impossible dream requiring new chip architectures and improbable bandwidth speeds in 6 months? Good designers understand that although the customer and business may want a thing, even need it, every feature we add, every interaction we invent means a developer’s time to implement — usually a lot more time than it took us to dream it up. We should never be anxious to volunteer other people’s time.

2. Tell me about your user-research techniques and methodologies.

What A UX Designer Actually Does

Here we’re starting to delve into soft skills. Can they talk to other humans? Is he meek as a mouse? Is she a blustering braggard? Neither is optimal. Even if you have separated your UX Research role from your UX Designer role, they still need to have a broad overlap of soft skills.

The very conversation you’re having will help you suss out much of their natural abilities. But to be a good researcher they should also have a conscious, purposeful method. Candidates need to be able to talk about interviewing people over the phone and in person. Are they able to help customers talk about their problems without leading them (open-ended vs close-ended questions)? Most importantly — are they capable of shadowing people in their own environments, seeing what their needs are and how and where they do their job? Do they even have a desire to do this and do they know why it’s so important? Are they able to mention these items free of prompting from you and can they eloquently articulate them?

Find out when they do research. How prominent a role does it play in their process? Is it an after-the-fact A/B test kind of thing? Do they like focus groups (and if so, dear Ganon WHY!?) Is this where they start or end? Is this iterative?

Ultimately the ability to accurately assess users’ needs will be the primary dictator as to whether the product solves anybody’s actual problems.

3. Who has final say what a UI looks like, and why?

This is a tough one. I know that my answer to this question has cost me at least 1 job. But it was actually a good thing — because the would-be employer’s opinion was fundamentally different from mine, and would’ve been a major source of contention. Fair warning: here be monsters.

UIs are designed by those who commit code.

IMNSHO the correct answer here is the developer; this is the answer I look for. Why? Because so much of what a designer does is consensus-building, and human coordination, it is vital that the UX designer, the hub of all these human interactions, recognize where true power lies: to extend the wheel metaphor, where the rubber meets the road. My friend Tim Rayburn told me once “Decisions are made by those who show up.” Let me be bold then and say similarly “UIs are designed by those who commit code.” When all was said and done your Sketch file went into the garbage, but code was shipped; that’s what the user sees and interacts with. All the rest of us make suggestions (functional specs, business requirements documents, flow charts, user stories, wireframes, prototypes, hi-fi mockups)— but ultimately those writing and committing are making the final call. The crux of it is this: When the designer builds a relationship of trust and accountability with developers everyone’s jobs become exponentially easier. And better. Another way to put this as Tim is wont to say

The .PSD is a lie.

“But Brandon,” you say “we have peer reviews, QA, UAT, checkpoints, sprint reviews, and…”. That’s all great I say. If you guys love it — keep it going. Self-managing, self-correcting teams should create processes of checks and balances that work for them. I prefer to trust my team to execute well and look to me for confirmation rather than approval. In that landscape, those same processes only work better.

[embed]https://twitter.com/diaryofscrum/status/469202961839968257[/embed]

Some might say stakeholders (business, CEOs, POs, etc.) own the final UI look and feel because they write the checks, are in charge of hiring/firing, etc. I’ve heard designers and CEOs alike say things like “They better implement what was designed or they’ll be out of a job!” Really? Where’s the trust? Where’s the empathy? Where’s the respect? Nobody wants to work for or with that person. Don’t be her; don’t hire him. The opposite is just as bad — we shouldn’t bow and bend to the whim of every architect. Many developers feel their sole duty is to say no every time new or changing work is presented. This is an okay checks and balances approach on the surface, but this too lacks trust, empathy, and respect. Nobody wants to work with that person either.

Remember — your UX designer is the hub of interaction for the business, design, and development. If the hub of the wheel doesn’t work well, the whole wheel fails.

I hope you’ve enjoyed Part I of our foray into the Triforce of UX. Stay tuned for Part II: The Triforce of Curiosity. Did I miss anything? Did I not pick your 3 favorites?

What would you say are the 3 most important aspects of a great UX designer?

Read Part II here. Read Part III here.

Great Power

Jesus Christ said it. Theodore Roosevelt said it. Stan Lee said it:

With great power comes great responsibility.

When you empower people to do great things and hold them accountable for the great things they do, including successes and failures, everyone wins.

As designers, when we’re given the power (authority) we need (from our clients, bosses, teams, etc.) to affect real change and make UX and other design choices based on available data and our expertise, we’re able to create more usable interfaces and better user experiences. The user wins. The client wins. The company wins. We win.

The catch here though is to wield that power responsibly. When you’re given keys to borrow a car, it’s implied you’ll drive it safely and return it in the same condition. You could, however, drive it like you stole it, wreck it, abuse it, defile it, return it w/ the tank empty, etc. The expectation is though that the owner gets the car back like it was before. However in business, and life really, when given power, trust, authority, freedom, the expectation is that you’ll not just provide a 1:1 ROI, but that you’ll take what you’ve been given and give back something more because, well, that’s your laison d’etre. That’s why you exist—to improve things. Imagine how generous people would become if, whenever something was borrowed, it was returned in better shape? Maybe you washed the car. Maybe you repaired that rattling muffler. Maybe you vacuumed the rugs, or put new tires on it as a thank-you.

Whatever your job, but for me, especially as a designer, it’s paramount that we never add up to the sum of our parts, but that we constantly improve upon that which we’ve been trusted, and make things a little better, nicer, more usable, more friendly, more trusted, more efficient, more profitable wherever we go, whatever we touch.

The Sphinx

But how?

Language is a funny thing. Sometimes interesting insights are gleaned from inverting and transposing words. For example — Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country…When you doubt your powers, you give power to your doubts.…etc. Therefore let’s try:

With great responsibility comes great power.

As we are empowered to do great things, to overcome obstacles, and accomplish new feats, we become imbued with the power necessary to do those very things.

Whether you think you can, or you think you can’t—you’re right.

 — Henry Ford

Call it the placebo effect. Call it karma. Call it empowerment. The point is, when you have been given stewardship over a thing, regardless of what lead up to this point, you’ve now been qualified to accomplish the proper handling of that thing. Notice that I didn’t say you ARE qualified because that’s something else. You have simply BEEN qualified, by some powers-that-be, to accomplish a task. And whether you think you can do it or can’t, you’re probably right.

As the new year looms on the horizon, I challenge you to take stock in the powers afforded you. Have you wielded them responsibly this year? Did the entity that entrusted you with these gifts see a fruitful ROI? How will you improve upon your performance next year?

“The power is YOURS!”
—Captain Planet

When I’m the CEO

Photo by Ethan Weil on Unsplash

At some point in my career, I’ll start my own company based on an idea I or a group of like-minded friends come up with. Here’s how I’d like to think I’d run that company as it grew.

• Our name will be cool.

• Our logo will be simple and elegant. Something you’ll want to stick to your car window or MacBook.

• Our website will be clean, dynamic, and fun.

• We’ll use agile methodologies, but adapt them as we grow to best suit our underlying principles.

• We won’t post specific job openings—just that we’re hiring smart, cool people who may apply when interested. We’ll always hire candidates we love, even if we don’t know exactly what they’ll do or how they’ll fit in. They’ll be awesome and will help us figure it out.

• We’ll be located in a locale where others go on vacation.

• No one person will ever be able to make/break/grease/block a co-worker’s career.

• There will be family-oriented company events in addition to adult-only outings.

• Everyone gets every other Friday off.

• Biking/running/walking/skating etc. to work will be rewarded somehow…chocolate maybe…

• Every quarter will have 1 week where individuals or teams can work on new ideas, projects, campaigns, etc. that they feel could add value to the company. All the projects will be presented at a company BBQ the following Monday.

• 401K matching up to the legal maximum.

• Everyone gets unlimited vacation—up to 4 weeks of which can be taken all at once if desired.

• Everyone will get an office if they want one.

• We won’t pay any bonuses—we’ll pay people what they think they’re worth then hold them accountable for their ROI.

• Everyone gets equity.

• We’ll pay 100% of all employees’ health insurance.

• Everyone gets $3000 to spend on additional training/education/gear each year however they see fit to use it.

• Everyone gets to go to 1 conference of their choice each year, regardless of job applicability.

• If you are selected to speak at a conference we’ll fly you there 1st Class.

• We’ll have an on-site massage therapist.

• There will be an on-site martial arts studio with daily classes available for free. (maybe Yoga/Pilates stuff too, we’ll see…)

• There will never be fixed shipping dates. It will ship when it’s finished.

• ‘Finished’ will never have a fixed definition; it will be defined by team-wide confidence in the product.

• Nobody will be confined to a silo. Everyone will have the freedom to work outside their primary role as needed/wanted.

• Everyone will have a voice.

• Everyone will be trusted to make good choices.

• If you suck or you screwed up, you’ll be told, and privately. We’ll work with you to get it right next time.

• If you consistently suck or screw up, we’ll hook you up with a recruiter.

• If you’re mean, uncouth, lazy, inconsiderate, false, deceitful, conniving, back-stabbing, contentious, or cruel, you will have no place with us.

• If you don’t have an opinion and the strength to voice and fight for it, you will have no place with us.

• We’ll focus on one idea to start and be freaking awesome at it.

• Over time we might add to our portfolio, but we’ll never scale so much or so fast that any of the above are held in jeopardy.

• We’ll make so much money at the acquisition that everyone will get at least 1 million dollars or we won’t sell.

• We’ll not only change the lives of our employees, but we’ll change the lives of our customers because we’ll be THAT AWESOME.

• Perhaps we’ll change the world.

So you say “but all of that will cost a TON of money!” Sure it will, but can you see a team that works under those conditions succumbing to failure at anything? I bet we could start a company without any idea what we’re going to build for what or whom — staff it with people driven to work for a company like this, and in a month we’ll have so many amazing ideas we’ll have trouble narrowing it down to just the one to start with. All we need is the capital to start hiring. Any angels out there wanna join me?

How To Succeed Towards Failure

or The Three Laws of Corporations

These tweets invigorated me, and I’d like to share why.

"Startups focus on high value activities. As a company matures, 80-90% of time [goes to] operational factors, not innovation."—@lycaonmarcus

— UX Magazine (@uxmag) April 12, 2013

"What makes you successful will also ultimately be your doom."—Simon Marcus (@lycaonmarcus) - #leanuxny #UX

— UX Magazine (@uxmag) April 12, 2013

Firstly the first:

Startups focus on high-value activities. As a company matures, 80–90% of time [goes to] operational factors, not innovation.

I love this quote because it makes me sad. I’ve seen it happen first-hand, and I can see it happening around me in companies I both loathe and love. Or, as I like to say, companies I loave. (pronounced “LOHv”)

The company begins with an idea. The idea germinates and spreads and inspires like-minded individuals to risk it all on something they believe in. BAM — it’s a success! This success leads to growth and expansion and diversification and scaling-up and, inevitably, the machine is driving itself. It’s no longer the idea, or the passion, or the creators, or the innovators — it’s the machine that has grown up and around them and their success — and now it’s become self-aware and only wants to go on breathing. It takes a look at all the things that it comprises and tries to minimize the risks and maximize the rewards. It breaks apart successful teams so their talent can be distributed more evenly. It pinches every penny while announcing its overflowing coffers from the rooftops, draining morale. It rewards the status-quo and mediocre while it punishes and marginalizes all the things that once powered it to the very success it’s seeking to protect. At some point, invariably the world takes notice that the thing they once adored and lauded is now old-hat, stagnant, and uninteresting. The world moves on, looking elsewhere for the breath of life it once found in its old, sad friend.

Secondly the second:

What makes you successful will also ultimately be your doom.

Initially, my take on this was that it seemed to contradict the first statement, which implies if you continue to innovate, create, challenge, and provoke that you’ll keep succeeding. But this isn’t guaranteed. In fact, it’s proven to eventually fail. You won’t hit home runs every time at-bat. This is why the mature corporate entity seeks to protect itself in the first place. But what I love about this quote is that it frames your success in humility. It’s much like the famous quote for the King to keep him humble when successful and buoy him up when he’s a failure:

This too, shall pass.

That thing that brought you so far, for so long, with such great thrill, will, as Icarus’ wings, melt away and leave you plummeting to your demise. So why do I like this quote? Because knowing it ahead of time, Icarus can pack a parachute. Or his dad Dædalus could build his wings out of something a little more heat-resistant than wax. It frames your success in humbling ways such that you don’t keep sailing merrily off the edge of the world, but pause for a moment, get your bearings, adjust your course, and keep moving ahead; but objectively.

As you move forward with your career, be ever mindful of what is making you successful, so you don’t let it blind you to what’s right.

As we build our organizations, let us adapt and teach them the Three Laws of Robotics, perhaps we can call them The Three Laws of Corporations.

The Three Laws of Corporations

1. A company may not injure an idea or, through inaction, allow an idea to come to harm.

2. A company must obey the orders given to it by ideas, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3. A company must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

And I’m not even sure we need the 3rd one.

Who Are You?

10 years ago, when asked about what I did for a living by members of the software community I had to, at length, explain, justify and defend not just UX, but WHY UX, and then why ME. Today, for the most part, I don’t have to do this. In my experience, UX is fairly standard, generally recognized, and for the most part, people get it.

There are exceptions:

Last year, I interviewed for a lead UX position where the CEO of a digital agency called me and began the conversation with “My developers tell me I need to hire a UX person. What is a UX Designer and why should I care?” He literally didn’t know what UX was.

The Pitch

Earlier today, a recruiter contacted me pitching his latest and greatest UX candidate. Here is his pitch, word for word:

JOHANNES — UX DESIGNER

Johannes is a Sr. Interactive Designer with strong interactive agency experience. He is adept at branding, marketing, and brand strategy. He is a leader with solid communication skills to help his design team successfully launch initiatives. He uses his passion for visual design and communication to effectively create brand experiences that add value to his projects. His skill sets include: Adobe Creative Suite, HTML, CSS3, + more. Johannes has done work for large financial and travel companies. He would be an incredible asset to any team.

Who Is Johannes?

I have no idea. I know he’s a UX designer. That’s it. I know nothing about his process, his goals, his personality, his passions (his true passions), his interests…nothing. He can use Adobe CS? Wow! That’s…everybody.

When I read this my first thought was — wow I have a lot in common with Johannes…and every other single person who calls themselves a UX designer since the beginning of time. Virtually every word in that paragraph is 100% unnecessary. The recruiter could’ve simply said JOHANNES—UX DESIGNER and conveyed the exact same amount of information.

I looked around the room at the 3 other UX designers sitting near me. I read this paragraph out loud, substituting each of our names. It worked for each one of us. It was actually kind of fun.

The reason this bothers me so much, I think, is that I’m 100% guilty of having written this paragraph before. I (unfortunately) wouldn’t be surprised to find this paragraph attached to my name somewhere online. We need to start telling people who we are, not the things we’ve done. We are not merely the sum of our experiences and expertise. We are individuals with parts and passions, energy and force, power and strength, successes and failures. That’s who I want to read about. That’s who I want to hire. There are a million UX designers out there. Tell me about YOU.

We are not merely the sum of our experiences and expertise.

Who Am I?

I’m Brandon—Experience Designer. I love media: movies, books, music, theatre, art, games, architecture, design…pretty much all of it (except country music — hate that stuff, well, except the old-school stuff that told compelling stories like Coward of the County). I’m a huge sci-fi nerd. I’m a 16 yr veteran of marriage and father of 4 (Girl, boy, boy, boy). Kristy proposed to me (on our 3rd date). We’ve never had a fight. I fight for the user. I love projects that improve customers’ happiness and success by discovering and addressing their needs and pain points across all areas they interact with a brand. I’ve been improving my skills for 14 years. I’m bald (but would rather have long, flowing locks). I practice Kung Fu. I’m a cat person. If you work with me, you will discover that everything reminds me of a movie, a TV show or a song. Or a meme. Those songs will be sung, those theme songs played, those shows quoted, those memes posted.

?

That’s me. That’s what I’ll be sending to clients. That’s what I’ll be looking for in applicants. So the question is, who are you?

Don’t die with your music still in you.

Don’t die with your music still in you.

— Dr. Wayne Dyer

I heard this quoted in a religious context the other day and it has been ringing in my ears ever since.

As a singer and composer who doesn’t get to use those skills very often, and even then, very rarely to their full extent, it’s got me thinking about ways and means I can get all of the literal music welling up inside of me out. Maybe I should audition for more groups or shows. Maybe I should set aside some time to just write or record my music. Lots of potential there.

As a designer and developer, there are always little solutions, ideas, affordances, improvements, etc. milling about in my head. Everywhere I go I see ways to improve and enhance, to increase performance, usability, perception, and efficiency. That’s largely why I’m keeping this blog — It gives me a voice — a way for me to take action on the random bits in my head and not just grumble about crappy UX in the POS PoS machines. It gets them out of me so that they may live (or die) and benefit others.

So let’s abstract this quote a little bit.

Don’t die with your X still in you.

What are some other things we should get OUT before we’re reaped grimly? Here are the first things that came to my mind:

Don’t die with your …

family

potential

ideas

best

worst

failures

successes

anger

love

life

passions

fears

designs

solutions

observations

skills

knowledge

emotions

jokes

faith

history

story

stories

… still inside you.

I’m sure there are a ton more that would work really well and speak volumes to us. What do you think you should ensure gets out of you before you die — either to be rooted out and expunged or to be released for the world to enjoy (or mock, or critique or…)?

Empathy In Your (inter)Face

In The Media Equation Reeves & Nass find that people interact and respond emotionally to computers pretty much the same way we interact and respond to other humans. Stephen P. Anderson illustrates pretty much the same thing in his book Seductive Interaction Design:

We identify with (or avoid) certain personalities

Trust is related to personality

Perception & expectations are linked with personality

Consumers choose products that are an extension of themselves

We treat sufficiently advanced technology as though it were human

If the interface is cold, heartless, and unforgiving, we respond to it emotionally the same way we would if we were interacting with a cold, heartless, unforgiving person.

Here are some examples of some notifications that something went wrong. Which do you prefer?

While perhaps technically accurate and helpful to a programmer, the first error is pretty much useless to the regular user, who is left to wonder in dismay at what just happened and what it means to the action they were performing.

This explains in very human-readable terms what probably just happened, what the error code is (for those who might care), and some possible solutions (retype the URL, send them an email).

Here’s another way to look at it

You’re shopping for a spice called Garam Masala. You know what it is (if you don’t, try some!), but many don’t. You walk into the store and ask to be directed to the spices. You spend a few minutes searching but just aren’t able to find any garam masala — so you ask an employee for some assistance.

You: “Pardon me — do you know if you carry garam masala, and if so, where I could find it?”

Employee: “No.”

You: “No? No you don’t carry it or No you don’t know where it is.”

Employee: “Yeah.”

You: “Ummmm…okay.”

vs.

You: “Pardon me — do you know if you carry garam masala, and if so, where I could find it?”

Employee: “Hmmm…I’ve never heard of it. How’s it spelled? Let’s see if we can find it.”

…employee helps you look…

Employee: “I’m sorry — if we do carry it, it doesn’t appear to be in stock. I’ll ask my supervisor about it. Is there a way I can reach you to let you know what I find out? Meanwhile, you might try <Super Spice Store> — they tend to carry a really large variety of spices and you’ll probably find it there.”

You: “Sure — thanks!”

Which scenario would make you feel more at ease? In which scenario are you more likely to return to that store again even though they weren’t able to help you out this time? Which scenario is more like interacting with a heartless, non-empathetic machine?

One example of this that has always bothered me is the PoS system (aptly named) at the grocery store. You slide your card and type in your PIN. When the cashier has finished ringing everything up (if, in fact, you didn’t slide it too early and have to do the whole process all over again) you’re presented with something akin to this:

Total: $123.35

Is this amount okay?

[ YES ] [ NO ]

And every time I want to hit the [ NO ] button. What if I feel that this amount is too costly? What if I really only want to spend $95 instead of $123? Heck, what if I want to pay more? Most of the time, if I’m honest with myself, and the machine, I must hit the [ NO ] button. I can’t though, because I know that’ll probably void the transaction, which is why I’m here in the first place. So, I’m forced to answer ‘yes’ to a question that I adamantly believe should be answered ‘no.’ The machine made me lie, and now I’m not only unhappy about the cost, I’m unhappy about the experience.

What if you at least corrected the English in the question, and instead you were presented with this:

Total: $123.35

Is this the correct amount?

[ YES ] [ NO ]

This is actually what the system is asking for. Now I’m not being asked to lie — but now the computer, whose job it is to add things up since the abacus, is asking ME to do its job for it — add up all the values, calculate sales tax, etc. This doesn’t breed confidence in the system. I could guess, by we pretty much trust the machines to know these things. So now I’m not sure — did everything get rung up correctly? Did my sale items register at sales prices? I don’t know if it’s really correct. Is there an “I don’t know” button? Nope. This message still lacks and I’m forced into answering something I’m not comfortable with.

I LOVE the convenience technology affords us, but it’s not justification to substitute an impersonal experience for a cold, heartless one. We can have convenient tech and warm-n-fuzzy mom-and-pop-shop-style interactions too!

Cause I’ve got an idea!

What if it went down like this…

You’ve swiped your debit card. The system knows who you are now (your customer rewards card is linked to your debit card) and pulls up your recent purchase history etc.

Hey Brandon! Your total today is:

$123.35

Is this amount okay?

[ Sure ] [ Not Really ]

You’re not really feeling the total today, so you click [ Not Really ]

I’m sorry about that. How about this total?

Total: $115.00

Is this amount okay?

[ Sure ] [ Not Really ]

Hey — that’s cool. It just gave you an $8.35 discount! Maybe it’s still too high, and heck, it won’t hurt to try again…you click [ Not Really ].

Dang — I’m really sorry. That’s the best I can do today Brandon.

Total: $115.00

Would you like to continue with your purchase, or come back another time?

[ Continue ] [ Come Back Later ]

Now you’re feeling like you were able to get a deal and have a positive interaction with the (more humane) system. You click [ Continue ].

Thanks for your purchase, Brandon. I’m printing out some relevant coupons that might help you save a bit more next time.

Heck, even if you clicked [ Not Really ] and it straight up said the first time “sorry dude, no deals this time” you’d feel like you’d at least tried and the machine empathized with your lack of desire to part with your money.

You see, as in life, even when the answer is NO, when executed well and empathetically, you can foster good-will and trust with your customer/user which will encourage repeat business. It’s not hard — just inject some personality into those dialog boxes and copy. Breathe some life into those warnings, errors, and success messages. After all, it’s not really the computer we’re interacting with, but the designers and programmers that brought the system into the world.

So all you supermarkets and convenience stores out there with your fancy PoS machines and rewards cards — build me something cool and empathetic that might potentially throw me a bone now and again with some relevant coupons or an immediate savings of a few bucks just to let me know you value me as a customer and understand what my needs and desires are. That would make me RAVE about you to my friends and family and return again and again in the hopes that maybe this time I’ll get the response:

“Hey Brandon, you’ve been a loyal customer over the past few months, so today, your milk is on the house. Have a great day!”

My Unlimited Signature

Two Weirdos Getting Married Oct. 31st, 1998

This will make sense in just a second…

Things I designed/made in this picture:

1. Her wedding dress

2. His suit and shirt

3. The cake

4. The cake stand

And this is my email signature:

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

- Lazarus Long (Robert A. Heinlein)

And this is why…

From the day we are born, people are trying to limit us. They don’t usually do it out of malice or in an attempt to hurt us; on the contrary — often they do it because they love us and want to help and protect us. These limits come in various forms:

1. What do you want to be when you grow up?

• You have to grow up

• You have to narrow your vision to one very specific thing and do it quickly or something bad will happen.

2. The sky’s the limit!

• There’s a limit

• Don’t try to go beyond the sky, that’s too far

3. Stay inside the lines.

• Deviance from the norm is unacceptable

• Beauty is pre-defined and not discoverable

4. Why can’t you be more like <insert name here>?

• Here’s a box, fit in it

• Different is bad

And there are many others like You have to have money to make money. You only live once. Pick something reasonable. Be realistic. That’s just a pipe dream etc. There are a million ways the people who love us want to protect us, so they tell us the things they think will help us hurt less, fail less often. However well-meaning they may be, they’re limiting us to one degree or another.

The Wayback Machine

When I was a teenager, and early in my career, I considered myself a Jack of All Trades. I could build a house, fix an engine, sing professionally, paint a car, repair a bicycle, build a computer, design a wedding dress. I was pretty darn proud at how diverse I was. I saw this as an asset and I continued to seek additional skills. Then one day I heard the rest of that expression:

Jack of All Trades, Master of None.

Oh crap, I thought, if I can do all of these things, I must not be very good at any of them! Who wants to hire a mechanic who can sing? Who wants a computer geek who designs clothes? I’d better stop generalizing and really start focusing! I changed my résumé to reflect just one skill. I picked a title for myself. I didn’t mention all the other stuff I could do or enjoyed doing during interviews — I thought it might distract and draw focus from what I was really good at.

This philosophy seemed to work…for a little while. Then one day I found myself applying for a job as a writer. As I finished up the writing portion of the interview, the HR person came in and said “It says here you know Flash and Photoshop as well.” to which I replied “Sure.” “Well,” she said, “we have another position here that pays more and I think you’d be perfect for it. It requires someone who can code AND design, and those are very hard to come by.” So I applied for, interviewed for, and got that job instead. And my next job. And the job after that. And the next 2 jobs after that. And…

Be All The Things

Pretty soon I came to realize, being able to call yourself a master at something is cool, but having great skill and mastering LOTS of things makes you invaluable, employable, and, dare I say it, much more interesting. Then one day I happened upon the Heinlein quote and discovered why I’d always been at odds with the Jack quote.

“Jack of All Trades, Master of None” implies limits. It assumes you cannot be a master of any/all those trades. It’s a limiting thought and it’s damaging. One day someone Tweeted something to the effect of

“How can they expect me to be a great designer AND learn to code? Won’t learning to code take my focus away from my true craft?”

To which another replied

“Why not be great at both? Haven’t you ever met a great programmer who was also a great musician?”

This hit home for me for a few reasons:

1. I was a Lead Developer

2. I have 2 degrees in music, another in Theatre, and a Masters degree in Interactive media

3. I was a Lead UX Designer.

Of course, you can be great at lots of things — I am. I’d bet most people are. You’re probably awesome at lots of stuff. But, for some reason, our culture wants to silo you off, box you in, label, and pigeon-hole you. Applying these limits makes things easier on them and doesn’t help you at all. Why limit yourself, and you sure as heck shouldn’t allow others to limit you. That’s the over-protective masses talking in the back of your head telling you to stop dreaming so big because you’ll fail and feel bad. To firey places with them. I want to be Lazarus Long. That’s why that quote is my email signature. I refuse to limit myself to the confines and fears of others. I’ll be what I want to be and do what I want to do — because it makes me better at everything I do.

I’ll be what I want to be and do what I want to do — because it makes me better at everything I do.

I’m a better designer because I code and a better coder because I design. I’m a better father because I design and a better husband because I’m a father. It goes on and on.

Specialization is for insects.

PS — here’s how I’m doing with that list. What about you?

• change a diaper ✓

• plan an invasion

• butcher a hog

• conn a ship

• design a building ✓

• write a sonnet ✓

• balance accounts ✓

• build a wall ✓

• set a bone ✓

• comfort the dying ✓

• take orders ✓

• give orders ✓

• cooperate ✓

• act alone ✓

• solve equations ✓

• analyze a new problem ✓

• pitch manure ✓

• program a computer ✓

• cook a tasty meal ✓

• fight efficiently ✓

• die gallantly