the gallery of incredible notions
Gmail updated their Inbox design today, but bungled the transition (in a deep way, well beyond the ability of their cheery 'Welcome to New Inbox' email to fix.
tl;dr version: don't just design new stuff, design for people to move comfortably from the old stuff to the new stuff.)
1. Trying out the 'new' Inbox gave me no indication that the 'no tabs' view would no longer contain 'important'/'unread' category distinctions. (If I knew, I would probably not have switched). This doesn't mean you can't have your old inbox back: just that you have to dig under Settings » Inbox first.
2. Social/Forum/Updates categories are often incorrect: so now I have to figure out what each tab contains, all over again.
3. There is no read-status grouping. Huh?
4. There is no importance-status grouping. The design clearly assumes that 'importance' is less significant for prioritization than content type. I hope Gmail has research backing this up, because it certainly doesn't work for me.
(It's now extremely hard to use your inbox as an attention-prioritizing mechanism; combined with the loss of read-status grouping, it is now effectively impossible to use Gmail as an email-triaging mechanism. )
5. There is no single view of where your messages are going. This is okay, except when you need to find that message that arrived a few days ago. You could search, except you're not sure you remember the right words to use. 'Primary' is not really your 'primary' email stream... or is it? (So. Confusing.) There's an assumption here that the temporal view is so unimportant that it can be done away with entirely.
6. 'Social' != 'Notifications'? 'Notifications' != 'Updates'? Either disable the Smart Label labs feature and transition existing smart labels over to the new ones, or use the same categories. Now I have 3 different ways to get to the same message, but it's never clear which is the best under a given circumstance.
7. There is no way of ordering the tabs. Say I want to read 'Forums' much more than 'Promotions', but I do care about tracking Promotions every once in a while, so I leave it on. But now 'Forums' is harder to get to from the 'Primary' inbox. So I turn 'Promotions' off to reach 'Forums' faster - and all the damn stupid marketing messages I get now pollute my Inbox.
Previously, the smart labels were effectively the same click-distance from me, and I could mix/match my importance/label (non-smart)/read-status as necessary for my particular mix of messages. My mental model mapped comfortably along the most important axes to the state of MY gmail inbox. Now that's gone (with no indication of whether it will evolve back.) It's just change without any suggestion of progress.
So what do I do now? I like the tabs, but can't work with the present state. Do I keep checking in every few updates to see if the above problems have been fixed? How much layout change can I tolerate? How should I redesign my email reading habits to fit this new layout? How do I figure out if/when this will work for me? (You can see this isn't just as simple as getting accustomed to a New Look.)
How this could have been avoided:
1. Don't render the current mental model useless all at once.
2. Explain what the transition involves, whether it is reversible, and how to reverse it. Better still, offer to do it for me.
3. Detect and avoid collisions with existing optional/advanced features; map those mental models to the new one.
4. Get the core aspects/categories of experience right in the new model.
(Corollary, for products – such as email – that manipulate categories: If you can't guarantee getting all of the core categories right the first time, assume that people's combinations of categories will be much more varied than you can imagine. Your task is then not to design categories, but to design category/set-combination tools.)
Why is this sort of stuff still happening? There's plenty of extremely practical[1] UX research [2] out there that tells you to HOW NOT FUCK WITH users' mental models, and how to design product/experience change in a humane way. I am loath to assume that the Gmail PMs/UXers/designers aren't aware of the implications of mental model screwups – and that this is more a result of a product management practice focused on shipping features instead of creating experience outcomes.
[1] You've probably read this already, but it covers the basics of what happens when mental models mismatch.
[2] Summary*: Change sucks. Big/constant change sucks emotionally. The unlearn/relearn cycle is hard. The calculus of change frequency+magnitude vs. engagement has multiple falloff/abandonment points.
* because the paper is hard to locate digitally.
Early preview of my forthcoming EPIC paper with colleague and co-author Christopher Avery; abstract:
Ethnographic and other related practices in industry focus - for a variety of historical reasons - primarily on studying the experiences of individuals/institutions as consumers/users. We suggest that this framing limits our work to descriptive forms of knowledge, and renders invisible larger social and institutional changes that nevertheless have an impact on the domains we study, and whose invisibility curtails the forms of innovation we can support. While a variety of practitioners are indeed broadening the range and scope of their work, we contend that for this expansion to succeed sustainably in our community it must also incorporate a discourse on values, and engage with other forms of knowing outside the frame of consumers and users, by encompassing context and engaging in a values discourse.
Comments are welcome! Leave them on the full version at issuu (includes a PDF download link)
I'm increasingly uncertain that the essential division in research methods is qualitative vs. quantitative (esp. since the two seem to be converging; see this & this).
The more fundamental epistemological divide is whether you think people are essentially stochastic objects (representable through correlations, distributions and probabilities) or narrative ones (represented through constraints, forces, stories and situations).
Helen Walters, talking about Jay Doblin’s Seven Levels of Design, muses that
... it means that 35 years ago, designers were thinking about increasing their scope from object to system, about how to elevate themselves from beyond providing the superficial aesthetic appeal of a product to considering its strategic consequences, even its point of existence. And honestly I think it’s telling and somewhat depressing that we’re still struggling with this whole discussion today.
I'm not sure that this is either telling or depressing.
Hypotheses: We're still talking about this because...
1. It's not formalized: Designers don't have a strong orientation towards theory in the same way that psychologists or social scientists do. (They don't have an academic press remotely comparable to the social sciences.) They don't have a sense of history beyond that of famous products, designers or design schools. So they treat each new cycle of systems thinking resurgence as a new phenomenon. See #3.
2. It's not taught: Creative / frame-shifting problem solving isn't broadly taught or encouraged, and share-price driven corporate life incentivises very narrow behavior. A regular corporate person isn't particularly going to need to (or be asked to) think in terms of several levels of systems of solutions; even if they do, strict hierarchies will disable them from following a multi-lateral solution.
3. It doesn't belong anywhere: We don't understand it, and we think this is a feature of design thinking. Or business thinking. Or systems thinking. Or...
{ The instance provided isn't generalizable (though I'm guessing that wasn't the intent). It's also not the oldest instance of thinking in terms of systems; Stafford Beer was thinking about *and doing* multiple levels of design in the early 1970s. He in turn built up his ideas based on cybernetics work in the 50's and 60's, ecological theory from the same period (e.g. Gregory Bateson) and so on. This is the same period the Gaia theory came into vogue, and the Council of Rome was modeling the limits to Earthsystem growth. It's also when the Creative Problem Solving body of work was established. }
This isn't the sole privilege of designers, and they're certainly not the first or only people to attempt this. That's also why it's hard to draw boundaries around thinking in levels and systems, and to situate it in a discipline. Thus, because it belongs everywhere, it belongs to no one and no one takes responsibility for thinking this way. And in the corporate space it becomes the domain of lone thinkers who may or may not be able to theorize this and publish about it broadly, and to move the conversation along.
4. This is the fastest we can move along: Our understanding of systems thinking progresses apace with our ability to construct systems. As we get better at producing systems (think of the shift from 'social network' to 'social layer', and the borrowing of terms like 'API' into service design), we also come up with concepts that fit our shifting practice. In one sense, we just don't possess the collective cognitive capacity to do sophisticated systems thinking just yet. It's just going to take time.
5. Corollary: We'll always be talking about this. It's possible that systems thinking is an emergent, shifting practice. Each era gets the systems thinking it deserves (or is capable of.) As systems become more complex and our ability to intentionally shape them evolves, it's possible that there will always be some kinds of systems or some aspects of system design that we won't have sufficiently powerful or descriptive concepts for at the time.
This suggests a different learning orientation than one that assumes that design thinking has basically got it; we may not be nearing (or even be heading towards) a pinnacle of design thinking knowledge, instead being part of a progression of understanding.
If you're a design professional with aspirations to fame, greatness, and massive impact, take a few doses of humility. There's a lot to learn here.
Elements of a theory of intellectual practice. Only considered from the perspective of the individual - each of these elements will operate differently in groups or as a social practice.
Pecha Kucha presentation given at the Ethnographic Praxis in Industry Conference (EPIC 2011).
Abstract: I explore opportunities for reframing research methods & practice by borrowing approaches from other disciplines. Along the way, I share examples of recent work that straddles boundaries, and compare existing ways of doing research that are tied into product development/organizational processes with the kinds suggested by the works.
Further, I raise the question of what the role of research in innovation is, approaching Don Norman's recent "design research doesn't lead to innovation" question from a completely different angle - one that is more hopeful and less a fallback to an explanation from technology. I use the conclusions to point towards reasons for collaboration with other disciplines in our professional orbit.
Notes & best practices from the discussion: thanks to everyone who participated and contributed - I merely collected and summed them up. Please share freely.
Problems & Dilemmas
- How do we put more effort up-front, before the project ever begins?
- There's usually a one-way flow of requests (needs/feature statements) from Marketing / Market Research to Product Development.
- Should I be a product manager or a researcher? What's the balancing act? Is it possible to be both? ("Experience Engineer" as one possible resolution, at Intel ESP because "engineer" provides status equality with "Software Engineer"). What should the relationship between a researcher and a PM be?
Best practices
- Target your insights to a particular person
- Mine your client for information about their work, their challenges, their colleagues
- Make the stories defendable (to other disciplines; go beyond just providing qualitative evidence that is sufficient for our standards)
- Design trackability of research outputs into the design process; find ways to tie insights into performance metrics as a way to prove ROI of research
- Find the extra cubicle: developing temporary embeddedness to establish relationships with your client teams. Live with them, become one of them.
- Identity engineering: Shape your identity carefully based on who your client is (or who you're talking with). "Research" might be too closed a label, and it doesn't help people relate to what you know.
- Be humble enough to make the idea someone else's (when other people use your words without realising they're yours, that's how you know you've succeeded).
- Speak like your client, think like your client. (How? See #2 )
- Know your customer's cadence (their cycles of product development; know when to interject and involve yourself, and how)
- After presenting, talk about your client's work. How do the insights impact their work? (Take time to socialise the research).
- Identify the decision makers (both of research budgets as well as product management). Target your insights to them.
- Understand how the clients define success. (How? This is still a sticky problem that generates vague answers. Probably something you constantly should do throughout a research project)
- You don't make the company successful, you make the person who hired you successful. Know what they're trying to achieve.
- Create two kinds of outputs: a. the dog & pony show for impressing the client's clients, and b. actionable/immediate/business-relevant for the client.
- Find about client's work lives (but be an informed blank slate, so you can quickly ramp up the discussion if they think you should know those things already)
- When pitching / interviewing, look up the other person on LinkedIn.
* More discussions at www.journalofbusinessanthropology.com (an Open Access journal).
Also posted on Google+.
Thanks to everyone who participated!
so far, google+ has better UI, but i'm not convinced they actually have better policies in the long run. structurally, in terms of how data / photos / media are shared, this is not significantly different from Facebook.
real innovation would come when they start considering relationships not in terms of what is shared or not shared, but how that accumulates to different forms of knowledge over time, by augmenting or amplifying awareness, by enabling people to stay in touch better, by preserving visibility across people & circles despite differences in posting/update volume, by enabling back-referencing and re-living. i can't repost / share this comment with the rest of my circles; so i'm not having better / more fluid, circle-crossing conversations here, either. this isn't innovation - yet. it's usability.
from a comment on a google+ post.
The Indians Say:
The land has an owner? How's that? How is it to be sold? How is it to be bought? If it does not belong to us, well, what? We are of it. We are its children. So it is always, always. The land is alive. As it nurtures the worms, so it nurtures us. It has bones and blood. It has milk, and gives us suck. It has hair, grass, straw, trees. It knows how to give birth to potatoes. It brings to birth houses. It brings to birth people. It looks after us and we look after it. It drinks chicha, accepts our invitation. We are its children. How is it to be sold? How bought? from Memory of Fire Volume 1: Genesis, by Eduardo Galeano
... on the occasion of Earth Day, ruminating on what happens when ideas of rights and property ownership collide with closed-systems ecologies and resource consumption limits.
I was reformatting logos for a conference's sponsors web page, and a google search on how to standardize logos for visual consistency turned up nothing. So here's how to achieve a clear, consistent sponsors page with logos. (Basic rule: equalize and align logotypes).
- Set maximum vertical size: 100 pixels is a good default
- Resize logotype (the company name text) to be 1/5th of max vertical size: in this case 20px: adjust as appropriate to your logo set. Approximations work, and are not easily visible. This is the single most important step in providing consistency. In case of logos with sub-text or taglines, design for the company name.
- Align logotype to central 1/5th of logo area: or whatever fraction you used in step 2.
- Desaturate: do this and the next step if you're trying to standardize colors to fit into your website theme.
- Adjust brightness/contrast to an apropriate grey/black/white: never tint to anything other color. You may have variations if you have logos with multiple brightness components.
This approach works best when you have a lot of different logos that aren't combined into one image (for display).
