Leadership from a junior designer

I wrote this back in 2000 when I was still a ‘fresh out of school’ designer. Its interesting to re-read my perspective from an older point of view. It definitely gives some insight when it comes to growing others.

“People need something to believe in. Whether it comes from inner strength or the motivating characteristics of those around them, the human psyche, in order to grow and evolve, has to first believe that they can succeed and grow towards something great. We have come to believe that we live in a world in which the strong survive. It is a world that can be conquered only by those who have a strong belief in themselves and the people who work with them to achieve their goals. It is a world in which strong leadership and teamwork create and follow through the goals that change the world in which we live. It is the job of the leader, to maintain focus and push the morale of his coworkers. It is also the job of the leader, to direct others into believing in themselves and their common goals in order to succeed.

As a company continues to grow, their people and their leadership abilities must continue to grow as well. An effective way for people to develop their leadership skills is by learning from the experiences of their peers.”

You can’t ‘heart’ what you don’t own

Is the asymmetry of the heart disturbing, or is it just me?

Users need to take responsibility when it comes to choosing which tools they decide to use. Investing in technology, doesn’t mean that it has the responsibility to take care of all your problems (or be a scapegoat for them). Victimization contributes to the absence of individual thought and action. A soapbox is only truly sturdy when you build it yourself.

A lot of hate has been exchanged across the web as of late. Apple’s complaining about Adobe’s software, Adobe’s complaining about  Apple’s plans for mobile domination, etc..

With individuals jumping on the bandwagon with ‘facts’ and ‘facts about the facts’, it is clear that its become a political free-for-all. Simply-put, its not about doing what’s right for the public, and it shouldn’t be.

For one, Apple and Adobe are not ‘good people‘. They’re corporations which create products that happen to be beneficial to the livelihood of a group of individuals. I would say, mankind, although I just realized there’s not a preference in Adobe’s software to ‘solve world-hunger’ nor a button on a mac labeled ‘world peace’.

What these companies make, enable others, but past that, they’re not, nor should be, responsible for the output of those who make a conscious investment in their services.

To say that either publicly-traded, profit-based, company is ‘bad or evil’ in the sense of its virtuosity to humankind, is an oxymoron. With that said, any argument which implies ‘the good of all’ in its thesis should be ignored, and its author tagged under ‘defensive’, ‘fanboy’, ‘erectile dysfunction’, ‘Note from CEO’, ‘overpaid-marketing firm’, etc..

What upsets me is that there are a lot of really intelligent people out there who have bought into the emotional plea of both companies. Facts become irrelevant, and reviews turn into flamewars fueled by defensiveness and personal vendetta. The word ‘open’ gets thrown out and immediately defined as ‘for the people’, when in actuality its a rope pulled over a big ditch of bullshit in a childish game of tug-o-war.

Simply put, we can’t rely on companies such as these to make or break innovation. The word ‘open’ doesn’t belong to either of them, and yet somehow we’ve allowed them to create their own definition to it.

As individuals, we shouldn’t feel the need to depend on others to set the limitations of what we can do. Any argument for ‘open-ness’ based on either company’s definition is not a valid one, for it stands not on the strength of the individual, but on that of a self-serving corporation.

Design limited to technical constraints is like art limited to social constraints. It doesn’t exist, if in doing so it wouldn’t be an act of creation.

So, to conclude, stop bitching and start doing. You’re too smart to fall into this ditch.

Formulating problems

“How do you formulate problems?”

What does this mean? Up until recently I hadn’t really giving it much thought past a problem that had been presented to me in the form of a project.

Cognitively, its always been ‘What is the solution?’, and I would work in coming up with a ‘design answer’. It is only from this inverted line of questioning that I can answer more completely.

A question such as this is almost immediate followed with a sense of ‘panic’. I call these ‘disruptive problems’. Its when I realize that I don’t have an immediate answer, and that I lose the chance of credibility knowing that I won’t be able to provide an immediate articulate solution.

This entry is actually my attempt to answer the question, “How do I formulate a problem?”

At first, I thought it was a silly question. Then I thought it was a typo. Then I hoped it was a typo. When I finally came to grips that it was a legitimate query. I panicked. Why? Because I didn’t have an immediate answer. I’ve solved problems in the past but it had never occurred to me how I came up with a problem.  I took it for granted that it just existed and didn’t need to be ‘conjured’ up.

I immediately became defensive, however the more I thought about the question, the more I realized that it was wholly legitimate, and an opportunity to grow from answering it.

I realized that by replacing the word  ‘question’ with that of ‘problem’ helped me immensely.

“How do we create a social networking site that is different than what exists?” is a problem.

“What, exactly, are the clients needs?” is a problem.

“Why is the current business model not succeeding?” is a problem.

In conclusion, I’ve found value in challenging myself to answer the question, “How do you formulate problems?” It’s forced me to be able to articulate and form an answer not just to it, but also the projects that I’ve worked on in the past and in the future.

It takes a different perspective, a different angle of questioning, to fully understand something we may not otherwise be able to articulate. It’s important to evaluate yourself whenever you feel ‘threatened’. A defensive reaction should be an alert that there’s an opportunity to grow. Thinking that you have a solution to every problem is a roadblock to success.

When will we ever learn?

There are a lot of things that go without saying. In fact, I’m all for the idea that if you can explain things with less words the better. I don’t mean to say that we should revert to a picture book mentality, but that, as the old adage says, “less means a lot more”.

We’re accustomed to thinking that the more we say, the more intelligent we’re perceived as being. I don’t know how or why this modus operandi exists, but the fact is, it does, and most of us are programmed to appreciate it more than understanding.

The great designer George Orwell

The literary icon, George Orwell, established six rules pertaining to the effectiveness of simplicity:

1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.

3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.

5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

Personally, I revere Mr. Orwell’s laws along the lines of gospel, when it comes to any form of communication. As an example, observe how the following image says more than any words can:

I don’t know about you, but I don’t have to understand the funny shapes underneath to not want to smoke. The visceral reaction alone is enough to invoke my gag reflex, more than any ‘Surgeon General’s Warning’ no matter how large the type is.

For some reason, this isn’t understood by the corporate world. Whether or not its stakeholder’s trying to establish their worth, or misunderstanding the attention span of web viewers, they fail in their efforts to communicate clearly by ignoring character count.

Adobe CS5 intro page taking into account the standard minimum browser height.

With that, I sum this entry up with one effective word: Seriously?

Quote of the day: Martha Graham

Martha Graham, American dancer choreographer regarded as one of the foremost pioneers of modern dance

“There is a vitality, a life force, an energy, a quickening that is translated through you into action, and because there is only one of you in all of time, this expression is unique. And if you block it, it will never exist through any other medium and it will be lost. The world will not have it. It is not your business to determine how good it is nor how valuable nor how it compares with other expressions. It is your business to keep it yours clearly and directly, to keep the channel open. You do not even have to believe in yourself or your work. You have to keep yourself open and aware to the urges that motivate you. Keep the channel open. … No artist is pleased. [There is] no satisfaction whatever at any time. There is only a queer divine dissatisfaction, a blessed unrest that keeps us marching and makes us more alive than the others.”-Martha Graham

Process

Recently I’ve been asked about my process when approaching a project design.

Abridged Version:

1. Get to know your client and their business objectives

2. Get to know the client’s audience

3. Immerse yourself in objective research so that you can define and back up your understanding of their product, including technical constraints and abilities

4. Come up with an interaction design model and, in the case of a website, a comprehensive sitemap and storyboard

5. Come up with at least 3 visual design directions

6. Build out design, while maintaining communication with your client/stakeholder

7. Most importantly, deliver with your integrity in check

Execution throughout all the steps are more involved and painful, but for the sake of simplicity, this is the general process I follow.

What’s yours?

Design is not a project

Seriously?

Its a common theme. When I started work right out of school, I thought I knew a lot about what good design was. It was the award-winners in Communication Arts annuals and other magazines I would comb through on the racks at Borders. It was the work of legends like Paul Rand, the the unreadable type treatment of David Carson, and anything Apple.

My first client work at Studio Archetype/Sapient was for HP’s eServices in 1999, and I was damned if I were to design a site without overlapping words. Surely, HP would understand and appreciate the value of such ‘cutting-edge’ design, and I would be an instant design rockstar on my way to climbing the ladder of greatness. I would have books dedicated to me like Tibor Kalman. I’d start a design firm and make plastic wrapped books. Who cared about HP’s brand guidelines? What were those? Weren’t we hired to tell them how to design an award-winning website?

Presentation day came and I waited for my Design Director to leave the meeting to give me the good news. That the client was overwhelmed with the brilliance of unreadable and un-renderable type. And when he finally appeared and I asked what they thought of my design, I was told it wasn’t even presented. Needless to say, that would be the first of many disappointments in my route to growth and maturity.

Looking back, I start to laugh out loud at my ignorance, and then I realize that it hasn’t really left. I’ve learned a lot over the past eleven years to know better. I’ve matured as a designer, and have come to fully realize that the underpinnings of design, its strength is grounded in research, understanding, and humility. However, it would be disingenuous of me to think that I have lost all traces of ignorance. To deny the fact that there is still room to grow, and learn from others.

Design is too big for such small thinking. Its not images, typographic treatments, Photoshop/Flash mastery, nor thought alone. These are all things that have a beginning, middle, and end.

Design is how we live our lives and how we communicate with each other, and therefore, has no aspect of ‘finality’.

However, its not words either. We need to be careful that we don’t become salesmen. That we use words that fall in line with what others expect to hear. There are many out there, directors in particular, who have forgotten what it means to be a designer. They reach back into their library of phrases, they know what others want to hear, and they’re able to deliver ‘solutions’ that are so conceptual that they become New Age Oracles. That’s not to say that conceptual thinking is bad, but its not the apex of design. It doesn’t make one a great designer. It makes one a great speaker.

There will always be problems in the world that need to be solved. Design is not a project. It’s the basis of human thought and communication.

By continually challenging ourselves find design in ignorance.

What are you waiting for? Challenge me. :)

From the Archives: The Selling Out of Fashion (2001)

The fashion industry is frustrated. For a while now, it has tried to push its ideals onto the masses through fantasy and experiences so far removed from the realities of everyday life without so much of a bite. When you walk downtown, you see ads upon ads of ‘life’. At least that is what you think it is until you realize that you and those around you look nothing like those metaphysical beings in the Banana Republic/Diesel/Gap ads.  It follows us home as well. We go home and are constantly being barraged with television ads in and out of syndication.

Its not so much the fact that beautiful people are playing our roles, and are trying to define our lifestyle, for most of us can see beyond the painfully obvious. It is the things that you don’t really see so much. The things that stick around in your head way after you turn off the set or pass by a huge billboard. It is the ‘life’ that is unreal, it is the ‘life’ that slowly gets placed into subconscious, something that belongs in it only because we have become systematically taught to believe it is ideal.

However it is not real. At least, that’s what I keep telling myself, for believing in the life they sell only leads to disappointment.  That’s not to say that you can never feel beautiful, for some of us can. Some of us look better than those we see in ads, or at least feel that we do at times. The fact is that, although you may feel like you belong to the ‘life’, and that you can sometimes find happiness  in being ‘beautiful’ and perceiving yourself as belonging within the billboard window looking out into the world –a boundary has been created.

On one side you have reality and on the other side you have the ideal. If you are on the side of reality, you are unhappy because you are rejected by the ideal, and the ideal is good, the ideal is the goal and the goal equals ultimate happiness. If on the other hand you perceive yourself as fitting within the ideal, you will find that it is only a matter of time until you realize that you are living a lie, and that there is no content behind that lie. When the ads stop and the next season comes along, you either reinvent yourself to follow the trends or snap out of the trance  and find yourself a mess of high maintenance materialism – a soul that has pledged its undying allegiance to the GAP.

The good news is that most of us realize this, and that is precisely why the fashion industry, in particular its marketing division, is frustrated. For the most part, it can’t get the average consumer to buy into its lifestyle anymore, and thus can not sell its products. I myself like their ads. I enjoy seeing what gimmicks and stories the fashion industry creates. Hell, being a designer, it is my job to help such companies find a way to grab interest, to lure, to sell the impermanent   and to define a lifestyle. Perhaps that is why I can sympathize with the fashion industry, because in a way, their problem is my problem.

So what is the answer? How can the fashion industry succeed. In trying to define how people should live, in trying to push an ‘experience’ that may or may not have existed, they have created a new form of entertainment. Or is it the other way around? I guess what I really want to say, at least the reason why I started this whole thought process, is that I’ve seen the fashion industry for the first time, try to create a new ideal. It is the ideal of reality. Perhaps it has been done before. No, in fact I know its been done before, but it seems to be more prevalent these days. And its not just that fashion industry, it seems that every marketing scheme nowadays are focusing on the ‘real’ person. Is the fashion industry as well as the rest of the marketing world coming to grips that they just can’t win? Are they in fact, giving up to reality? Only time will tell.

Beyond the Blue Sky

Below is a letter I wrote to my boss in 2007. At the time, I was engaged in growing my skill set in motion graphics design. Long and short of it, I needed a new machine. However, as we all know, most of the time you can’t just ask for a fancy new piece of hardware. You have to bitch, moan, whine, and be prepared to lose a certain amount of pride in doing so (cue squeaky wheel).

"Face Selector" Logan's Run, 1977

Joking (sorta) aside, I felt that, because new technology paradigms are quickly being introduced, static design comps, no matter how refined they are, don’t tell half the story when it comes to explaining a design solution. Clients need to be seen how new devices will react to human input, and vice-versa. Common understanding of such things as a ‘virtual environment’, are limited in its analogy to science fiction abstracts seen in movies such as Minority Report, Iron Man, and even Fahrenheit 451 and Logan’s Run back in the day.

"They say when you have your second wall-screen, it's like having your family grow around you."

The days of dreaming are over. What were once ‘blue sky’ ideas a couple of years ago are rapidly becoming necessary tools needed to solve real-world problems. We can no longer speak in terms of ‘what could be if only we had the technology’, for now we do. It is irresponsible for us as designers to fall back on explanation through fictional analogies and expect users to understand the things that we design for.

Just as interaction design helps to define thesis, and visual design illustrates interaction, motion graphics has become an necessity in explaining design and to introduce the real-life benefits that emerging technologies bring into our lives.

The letter:

“First of all, I want to thank you for your understanding and support regarding my career growth goals. To tell you the truth, I was a bit concerned that I may not have explained my intentions clearly enough. I know that I mentioned that ‘I did not want to do websites’ anymore, however that is not true. I understand my role at the company requires me to do so, and for the most part, I enjoy it. However, after working almost exclusively on websites for over 10 years, I feel the need to grow my digital media skill set beyond websites, finding particular interest in the realm of motion graphics. As we discussed, motion graphics can be a strong component in enhancing our storytelling abilities when explaining concepts and interaction to clients. It also adds value to the overall experience that our company can deliver (as seen in deliverables we’ve created in the past through Mr. A’s help).

As I’m sure you’re aware, traditionally our company has employed the use of motion graphic design to market our industrial design discipline. Little if anything has been created in this field to support digital media from a visual design perspective –our Austin office being an exception. Seeing deliverables from our competitors, it is clear that incorporating motion graphics to explain concepts through scenarios not only adds a ‘richer’ experience, but also enhances the overall ‘wow factor’ of professional deliverables. As the digital realm becomes more associated with video, I believe that such an experience will move from being an ‘enhancement’ to an expected norm, not only in explaining concepts, but in the conceptualization process itself. As web experiences move closer to mimicking the ‘real-world’, motion-based experiences are obviously an inevitable evolution.”

The Ego Has Crash-landed

It is embarrassing to think that a lot of what drives design is ego, and yet I understand this because it drives me. However, it is one thing to be honest about it, and another to pass it off as being ‘altruistic’ in nature. I believe that a lot of designers fool themselves in believing that they are good people. Most of the time, its a lie. There are good outcomes, but ultimately we need to face the fact that we’re all in it for ourselves.

Mind me, that isn’t a bad thing.

The bad thing is believing, and selling yourself otherwise.

I am currently working on a team which posts their contributions on a blog for others to review. When I joined the group I noticed that before each blog the author makes it clear that they were a contributing factor and that they ‘get credit’ for what they post. Now, this isn’t a bad thing in practice. It can be argued that it is not ego driven, but that of accountability -but that’s pure smokescreen.

The fact is that there exists some sort of mental gratification which comes from putting your name on work regardless of your level of contribution. It could be that you’ve made a comment, suggestion, critique and then posted a link to the work. Does that make your a contributor? The question is a moral one.

My manager recently sent out an email attributing designers with their responsibilities and contributions. The email was quickly appended by another colleague attributing herself to particular projects of which she had made minor contributions to. I don’t know about common opinion, but suggesting that a line is a pixel off, doesn’t exactly deem ‘contribution’.

What bugs me is the obvious need for attention. The word ‘opportunist’ comes in mind. I mean, seriously, such an act is a pretty pathetic (and obvious) call for undeserved attention.

I myself, detest the whole “I did this!” mentality, and I definitely don’t respect those who feel the need to garner such attention.

A designer’s skill should be self-evident in their work, and those who need to be made aware of said designer’s contribution are poor leaders.

That said, I pity those who feel the need to ‘sign’ their names to collaborative work in order to gain attraction.

It is the quality of work that defines a person. Feeling that you must promote oneself with a signature is a desperate call for personal relevance.