Re: [IxDA Discuss] Don't listen to your customers.

[Dwayne King]

Talk to the customer to understand the needs and issues, not to have  
them help design. Designers design, consumers consume - that doesn't  
mean the consumer can't tell you what is bad about their current  
experiences to feed the design fire. We hold a lot of user meetings  
and have to craft them to keep the users from trying to design  
solutions.  That said, the insight is invaluable.

My opinion.



On Mar 27, 2008, at 11:05 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> I'm in a quandary.
>
>
>
> I like Dell Ideastorm [1], I like myStarbucksIdea [2] and I like the
> approach listening to customers espouse what they like and don't  
> like about
> stuff I, and my clients, do.
>
>
>
> But, I keep digging up these quotes with monotonous regularity:
>
>
>
> a)   "If I had asked my customers what they wanted, they would  
> have
> said, 'a faster horse" - Henry Ford
>
> b)   "We don't ask consumers what they want. They don't know.  
> Instead we
> apply our brain power to what they need, and will want, and make  
> sure we're
> there, ready" - Akio Morita, founder of Sony
>
> c)   "It sounds logical to ask customers what they want and then  
> give it
> to them. But they rarely wind up getting what they really want that  
> way" -
> Steve Jobs
>
> d)   "It's really hard to design products by focus groups. A lot  
> of
> times, people don't know what they want until you show it to them" -  
> Steve
> Jobs (again)
>
>
>
> So should I stop talking about focus groups? Is the old method of  
> ask and
> listen not applicable - particularly when designing stuff that's  
> 'future
> proof' and therefore impossible to assess with the users of the  
> future - or
> should we seek out new methods? Some have suggested trawling user
> communities, eavesdropping on online dialogue to perform a gap  
> analysis .
> but is the next iPod or Flickr going to come out of a conversation  
> on a
> Facebook wall. It just seems so vague. Of course, myStarbucksidea  
> (flawed as
> it is from an Ix point of view) is an attempt to localise the  
> dialogue but
> will the ultimate output of this just be a 'faster horse'?
>
>
>
> For us in the IxD arena when we're trying to create something unique  
> and
> something innovative we press ahead with the development of  
> prototypes and
> visuals that may reflect an interface and design that doesn't  
> reflect where
> our users are today and, because they've not seen the insight we  
> might have
> done, simply don't get why they'd need it. A case in point: a piece  
> of work
> I've been involved with presented the idea that banking customers  
> could tag
> transactions in their account - customers didn't get it: "why would  
> I do
> that" . but we know from Mint [3], Wesabe [4] and others that people  
> do use
> this feature. The problem being that the client has heard too many  
> users in
> testing being dismissive about the idea and therefore increasingly  
> thinks
> it's a waste of time. Granted, we could have fleshed out the  
> prototype with
> 'why would I do this' type content and is this the failing here or  
> simply
> that users don't always know best?
>
>
>
> Your learned opinions are sought.
>
> John.
>
>
>
> [1] http://www.dellideastorm.com/
>
> [2] http://www.mystarbucksidea.com 
>
>
> [3] http://www.mint.com 
>
> [4] http://www.wesabe.com 
>
> 
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Who would you like to see in a Debate?

[Dwayne King]

On Mar 13, 2008, at 5:16 PM, Robert Hoekman, Jr. wrote:

> The 37signals customers have spoken


Yet I've never met a person face-to-face that actually likes it. I see  
a lot of praise on lists and blogs, but everyone I've met that uses it  
hates it with a passion (present company included).

I can raise my hand as a small company (7 FT and a dozen contractors)  
that doesn't "think like Jason." Perhaps I don't know how to use it  
correctly, but then it begs the question, "why is it so hard to figure  
out?" 

Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Design at Apple

[Dwayne King]

On Mar 13, 2008, at 3:07 AM, Lada Gorlenko wrote:

> ...I reckon that many big companies would have at least several
> weeks -- if not several months -- of design cycle on most major
> projects.

I work with a lot of Fortune 100 companies consulting on projects and  
I would suspect that companies that are interested in bringing in  
groups like ours are more enlightened, or at least giving lip services  
to the power of design. My experience is quite contrary to this  
assumption. More often than not, we're fighting for ANY dedicated  
design time. Our belief has changed about the greatest value we bring  
to a company - our biggest value is getting groups to slow down, be  
thoughtful and gain a shared vision for a product. When we are  
assigned to projects, we often hear some variance of "We need to hit  
the ground running." Our question to them is, "Which direction."


> Of course, there are always exceptions (even Microsoft did
> Zune_v1 in 11 months from scratch to shipping), but I doubt they are  
> the
> dominant case.
>

In my experience, this is the rule, not the exception.


> HOW the final concept is selected is much more
> interesting. You can't recreate success by recreating a process. There
> is a little devil in the selection criteria, too -- and that is what
> Apple is not going to tell us.

Again, I disagree. The right solution is pretty simple once the  
success criteria is set and developed as a mantra. If the group takes  
the time to define the success criteria and define exactly what they  
want, they know it when they see it.  The first and most visual  
example that comes to mind is Hawkins at Palm carrying around a block  
of wood, when the good idea fairies fluttered about telling him what  
the Palm needed to be successful, he'd pull out his block of wood and  
asked, "Where does that fit on here." He defined what would make a  
successful product and stuck to his guns. That takes discipline.  
Discipline that I don't see in most organizations.


>
>
> If you are in a design shop or a small software company, things can be
> very different, I agree. But it's a different story altogether and it
> would be unfair and impractical to compare work practices of small and
> large companies or in-house design and consulting.
>

Why?


>
>> We've speculated about Apple's design process in the past.
>> This is the most information they've proffered.
>
> That's a good point. It's about secrecy, not the process itself. Apple
> is brilliant at their marketing strategies. Keep things secret and it
> will heat up curiosity and anticipation. Of course, when a  
> fingernail of
> the precious design body is revealed, it makes a Big Bang!

I would say that, until lately, Microsoft has been a much better  
marketing company than Apple. The free buzz that Apple gets from its  
secrecy is an artifact of good design.

>
>
> By all means, I have always been an advocate of shared knowledge and
> discussions on how different teams succeed. It's just once again
> slightly annoying that everything Apple does triggers that default "my
> God has spoken, I am enlightened" behaviour. Look at the details of  
> the
> God's gospel; they are new because we didn't know them about Apple,  
> not
> because we didn't know the process as such.

I suspect most on this list could name a number of companies they'd be  
interested to hear more about their process. It would all come down to  
the person believing the company has show an ability to release  
consistently good products. Your previous post was partially correct,  
the assertion that were the name changed and this article wasn't about  
Apple, that folks wouldn't be interested. If, say, Phillips released  
the same article, I'd be interested (GE, Toyota, Google, Patagonia,  
etc.) Let's say Buick released the same article, you're right, I  
wouldn't have wasted my time reading it. I guess my question is, why  
is that a bad thing?



Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Where are all the designers?

[Dwayne King]

On Feb 21, 2008, at 7:26 AM, Dan Saffer wrote:

> Location still matters.


I don't know. We're based in Portland Oregon, we do some local work  
but most of our revenue comes from San Francisco and Washington D.C.

It makes for a fair amount of plane travel and web conferencing, but  
all in all it allows us to live where cost of living is reasonable,  
quality of life is high an keeps our rates in check to be more  
competitive than a lot of the NYC and SF groups.

That said, finding people is tough in Portland also. It seems supply  
and demand is out of whack.

best regards,
Dwayne 

Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help