Change of location.
WordPress is fine and all, but I’ve been dying to run a site on the Squarespace platform. Squarespace is extrodinary, an easy-to-use system with a lot of customization options. Particularly if you’re a bit code-savvy – I spent the last week building my HTML/CSS/Dreamweaver repetoire, now I’m extremely pleased to be running an entirely new and custom-designed site.
Since there are still a few places that link to this WordPress page (mostly Blogger pages with default comment settings that don’t let me link the new URL), you should find the new site here:
Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
Good experience games
Here’s something extremely interesting I’ve found to follow. Mark Hurst has written the book Bit Literacy, addressing the frequently discussed information overload trend/phenomenon. As UX guy he writes on his blog Good Experience about what it means to improve user experience, customer experience, and human experience – for me, this stuff really hits the spot.
On top of that, he keeps an excellent list of Good Experience Games – flash and online games that aren’t there just to waste time but are genuinely entertaining and extremely well put together. We ran into the list looking for a quick way forget the fact that we’ve run out of Law & Order: Criminal Intent DVD episodes to watch; two hours later we realized we ended up finding something much more entertaining than we expected.
I got to thinking how interesting it would be to explore what the games on this list all share – what is the common user-experience thread here? I’ve been kind of poking around some sources, tossing some ideas around in my head, and might have some good thinking on the matter soon.
Filed under: User Experience | Leave a Comment
Not too long ago, we were shopping online for flowers. It didn’t take too much searching to figure out that the standard online flower shop – alongside many another online retail service – is missing that certain something. In fact, there is plenty of discussion about the fact that online retail lacks something in the way of experience, you can find an interesting exploration here.
On your typical online flower space, you find the categorized navigation that became the user-experience standard through the mid-2000’s and is still widespread today:
Typical online flower retail
Same concept, found throughout most online retail
My usual approach to finding more modern and innovative search results is a simple del.icio.us search, which lead us to this site where you drag-and-drop your own bouquet:
click-and-drag a custom bouquet
We at first overlooked that the site is intended to send an online bouquet only by email. But it wasn’t long after searching the other sites before it became clear that this pick-and-choose-features kind of approach would be much appreciated. Particularly for the girlfriend searching for the flowers, since she wanted to make a very personal and thoughtful selection – the flowers were for a funeral.
In fact to me, it stuck me as odd that many to most stores made some kind of disclaimer about the lack of certainty, in terms of size of color and even type of flowers that would actually be delivered after ordering. When it came to bouquet size, many retailers had a general Large/Medium/Small selection, often without measurements. We really got the impression that when buying flowers online, most people just don’t put in that kind of personal effort that involves wanting a certain color palate, certain kind of vase or basket, certain kinds of flowers.
Maybe it is simply that our view of what flower-buying should look like is just very different from how most people conceptualize this particular process – this is interesting enough. But we got into a discussion of how other retail categories, ones that we can be sure people put a lot of personal effort into, still use that old-fashioned categorized approach. There is an obvious one here - men’s and women’s clothing, dresses especially.
Here is a category where the typical website architecture makes an assumption that is clearly a bit suspect: that people shop for clothing already knowing what they want, and can thus find what they need simply by clicking an appropriate category. Men can click things like “Polo’s” and “Jeans”; for women it’s hardly more than “Blouses,” maybe getting a couple subcategories like “sleeveless” or “halter.”
I think here we find where some of that lacking online experience is most apparent: retail sites are organized in a way that simply does not match the way we actually shop for clothing. When we go into an actual store, sure we often have an idea of what we’re looking for. But that idea isn’t made up of basic clothing categories, its made of things like patterns, cuts, designs, and colors.
This is why we were drawn to the drag-and-drop bouquet, and why people are drawn to sites like Studio 28 and StyleShake, where you select design elements of your future garment in a logical step-by-step process:
It’s certainly no hot-off-the-press trend – we’ve called this customization, and it’s been a clear web 2.0 staple. But I think the insightful thing to take away is to remember that customization works on a simpler principle than is immedately apparent – the fundamental principle that we hardly ever immediately know what we really want. Certainly we like to have personalized, customized, semi-one-of-a-kind stuff. But in an important way, these sites let us tease out what we’re really looking for, one element at a time.
Filed under: Asking the right questions, Universal Truths | Leave a Comment
Tags: insight, search, experience, shopping
A few thoughts on leadership.
While spending time in the military, I had a lot of time to think about what leaderships is, since I always had a problem with the Army’s own ages-old conception. Real leadership is in fact about making meaningful connections with people. There is a school of thought people have subscribed to, that leadership is somewhere in the field of controlling loyalty.
Anyone who has a foot in reality knows that such a notion is naive: at some point, reality makes it clear that you can’t pretend to have that control.
What I got to thinking today is about what you can have: a true connection with some motivator that drives loyalty. What is that motivator, and what does that connection look like?
That motivator is vested interest. On an important level, leadership is about something very simple: captains make decisions because they are the only ones going down with the ship. True leadership starts with that commitment, because then loyalty is no longer about being controlled, it’s about having control. The control is over a decision: either I stay on this ship and support its success, or I get off now before I sink with it. When people realize that someone has more vested interest in a task than they do, that there is someone besides themselves who is responsible when the ship goes down, they realize why they aren’t the leader in the first place. The ones who understand and want that responsibility become leaders themselves.
Thats a model much more aligned with true motivations than any system of ranks and medals. What a shame that too many people out there never get past that first conception of being able to control people in the first place.
Filed under: Universal Truths | Leave a Comment
Tags: leaders, leadership, management, motivators
Advertising agencies and professionals often lay claim to their award-winning work, and sometimes it’s important to think through what we’re really getting across. Because great communication is driven by true, meaningful insights about the people you’re communicating with. A lot of mediocre thinkers look at insightful ads and communications, and tend to think of insights as something that come out of a 50 minute brainstorming session. That or they think they’re “creative” enough to think them up on their own in even less time (thats what creativity is, after all…right?).
You’re doing yourself a huge disservice if you think you can connect with an audience or consumer that way. Unfortunately, the idea is far too common. And it’s reinforced with these “awards,” doled out by people who have made a career thinking the exact same way.
It’s like, hey – if those professionals think it’s good, it must be…right?
Shouldn’t we be thinking differently about what makes an ad or other communication good? I mean, we’re supposedly communicating with someone…why aren’t they judging?
And the truth is that they absolutely are. And now more than ever, with all the communication tools social networks offer. Blog posts referencing YouTube videos. Links being shared. Lines being referenced in primetime comedy.
I think what I’m getting at is that it’s extremely easy to come up with what we think will connect with people. And not too much harder to convince similar thinkers that we’re producing great work. But we should be talking about our accomplishments in terms of insights, not awards. Because thats exactly what the people we’re talking to are doing with their friends.
Filed under: Criticism, How I Think | Leave a Comment
Tags: accomplishments, awards, industry, measurement
While inadvertently listening to Oprah talking about recessions, what to worry about, what to prepare for, I overheard a conversation she was having with a caller who video-conferenced in. The fan was talking about how a car is transportation, and in an important way isn’t exactly an extension of oneself but still expresses one’s personality, or who one aspires to be, or – as I took it – something about its owner. A simple concept, but dead on. Thats what brands are all about.
Oprah’s response was met by an applauding studio audience: No it isn’t! A car is just a car.
I’m not shocked, Oprah’s audience and show is in many ways all about this idealistic view of what “real-life” is. That’s just fine, but the idea that a car is just a car ignores an important reality of how people interact with others around them, and how people form their identities. “Wouldn’t it be nice,” the position argues, “if we formed our identities around non-materialistic things.” And in a way, I think we do form much of our identities around other, hidden things.
But so much of our identity is focused on the things that are readily visible to the people around us. Think not just of cars, or of clothing; think of our religious ceremonies, of why race is so key to our idea of identity . Because we want people to notice, to see things about us that express who we really (think) we are.
And to say that the things in our lives are just things…well it totally ignores that fact.
Filed under: identity | Leave a Comment
Tags: brands, identity, materialism
Mellifera economics.
A lot of people know Stephen Dubner and Steven Levitt. The economist/writer pair the write the Freakonomics column for the New York Times and put out a bestselling book by the same name; I took some time over the holidays to read it.
What I loved most about it was the simple assertion that by reading the book, you’re not going to take anything specific away in your head, like you might take a set of rules away towards bettering your life from a self-help book. As the writers made clear, the best thing one can take away was a new way of looking at the ordinary questions we ask in our life, from why we get upset that bicyclists use both the roads and the sidewalks, to why college professors choose or choose not to review test questions with students after a test.
These are not questions asked in the book (the biggest questions are along the lines of “what really caused the crime drop in the 90’s” and “how do you catch a cheating elementary school teacher–in fact, why would they be cheating to begin with??”), but the theme of the book is not to answer certain questions, rather to take a new approach in answering them. Which, as I came to think, is the real reason I liked the book in the first place. The authors beg their readers to ask bigger questions, the right questions, the questions that every question we are trying to answer has behind them.
This idea came out later in an unrelated discussion I had, where I ended up saying something to the effect of “every question has a bigger question as it’s answer.”
I think it’s an absolutely insightful, rather than pessimistic, way to look at asking questions.
I am really curious to know what the authors think of the bees that keep disappearing.
Filed under: Asking the right questions, How I Think | Leave a Comment
Tags: economics
Room 116 pointed me to a quote that reflects a lot about how I think we should experience the world:
In fact, it most reminds me of an anecdote that I took a lot of stock in while growing up. When I was young, some of the ways that values were driven into my life were through these political cartoons, article clips, and quotes that always occupied the same spot on the family refrigerator for as long as I remember.
Having seen it daily and driven into my head constantly, I remember this story (the important parts, at least) completely.
It goes that there’s this shepard, and a traveling passerby. He asks the shepard, “I wonder what kind of weather we’re going to have today?”
The shepard, in plain fashion, answers “well, the kind of weather I like.”
This doesn’t seem to be the answer the traveler is looking for, so he asks, “how can you be so sure that we’ll have to kind of weather you like?”
“Having learned that I cannot always have what I like,” the shepard responds, “I have come to like what I have.”
Proust and the shepard get to the essence of what I think is a critical idea to be mindful of, that maybe I caught a bit of in a recent post. It’s very hard to look objectively and productively at others, if we can’t see ourselves in but one way.
Sometimes learning about others is really just learning more about ourselves.
Filed under: Adaptation, The way I think is | Leave a Comment
Tags: Adaptation, flexibility, learning
I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how I think of people’s perceptions and about the notion of universal truths. I think about like this: we all have notions of what we believe in and what we know to be true. I’ve been thinking a lot about how or if we can call those notions universal, even if they are generally accepted.
It’s not an uncommon thought process by any means.
But it’s been sort of personal for me lately. I think I’m struggling to refine my own ideas about this against the notions the people closest to me have. One example continually running in my head relates to the way friends interact with each other–between themselves and outsiders. I’ve been witness to several examples of the friends closest to me in my life criticizing other friends for their behavior.
I think you’ll find that as a general rule, I have a hard time criticizing others’ behavior. Whether my ideals of “proper behavior” deem criticism warranted or not.
Because I can certainly say that my notions of proper behavior are very personal, and influence they way we think about others.
That statement is very simple. But I consider it extremely important.
It makes me think that a lot of things I do (and consider perfectly acceptable, and could probably even justify with what I consider common acceptance) are probably seen as improper and ridiculous.
Even to those who could justify their criticism with what they consider common acceptance. That’s a critical thing for me to consider.
I find it hard to be critical of the behavior of others, because I don’t readily accept that my criticisms are universally correct. I think sometimes that we all do, but that a key part of understanding how people think is looking at how we ourselves critically think of others.
Filed under: Criticism, The way I think is, Universal Truths | Leave a Comment
There’s a display box that I walk by every other day in a busy student center building here. It’s a lighted display box, and inside is some information about the anthropology department or something (it changes every semester or so). The light is operated by an easily-accessible button, and as such, is switched from on to off countless times everyday, I’m sure.
What interests me is the way people approach the light situation in their own minds. Some people–not everyone–I’m sure strongly feel the switch should be on, and make sure it’s on every time they pass. It’s kind of amusing to see this play out for those few who feel the exact opposite–because for sure I occasionally see someone pass by and make sure the switch is off.
What a trivial set of attitudes, but an amusing set of resulting behaviors.
To me, at least. I mean, it’s like watching a mass of pedestrians at a busy campus intersection making up their own rules about when pedestrians should cross, and when drivers should yield. And the drivers making up their own as well. Then watching the same drivers and same pedestrians switch roles (ex. a few days later when the driver is now walking and the walker now driving), and argue the opposite points because it’s more convenient and salient to them.
Maybe that’s the point. We form attitudes about things that are salient to us and in our face. But we spend so little time thinking about how meaningful those attitudes really are to us.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
Recent Entries
- Change of location.
- Good experience games
- How seldom we know what we’re really looking for
- A few thoughts on leadership.
- Lets all give ourselves a round of applause
- There’s a reason why we like what we call “things”
- Mellifera economics.
- Flexible learning: it’s not the spoon that’s bending.
- On why my own perspectives actually ARE more important than yours.
- We’re always right in the moment.
- I’m operating under the assumption that everyone wants to know what I think.
Categories
- Adaptation (1)
- Asking the right questions (2)
- Criticism (2)
- How I Think (2)
- identity (1)
- The way I think is (2)
- Uncategorized (3)
- Universal Truths (3)
- User Experience (1)
