Easy win: Twitter

Being an interaction designer means you’re aware of improvements that can be made in the things you use every day. This one is about the notifications in Twitter’s iPhone app. Hey, Twitter! Here’s an easy win.

So you’re on your iPhone when it buzzes in your hand. Hey, neat! A Twitter somethingorother. You open the app, only to see that there are no notifications for your current Twitter profile.

That’s cool. It must be for one of the other Twitter profiles you use. So you open the list of profiles only to see…nothing. No hint of where this little tweet of goodness awaits you.

Read More

About Face 4 diagrams, for you!

As part of its support for instructors using About Face in classrooms, Cooper is pleased to provide a PowerPoint deck of diagrams from the work in a Creative Commons 4.0 BY-ND license. What does that license mean to you? You are free to use all or part of this deck and share for any purpose as long as you do not modify the content, and include the attributions at the bottom of the slides. Drop it into decks, share amongst colleagues, and of course, if you have any questions, please drop us a line via education@cooper.com.

Note that we didn’t try to situate the slides in a larger context of meaning (that’s up to you) but the page numbers have been noted on each slide so you can reference that section of the text.

Read More

JuanSpotters late night commercial

What else do you do when your car breaks down, miles from nowhere, and you find a creaking cabin that is empty but for a dusty couch and an honest-to-goodness 19″ Sony Tabletop television set? How is this thing still working? Who’s still broadcasting over airwaves?

Well, you don’t want to go wandering around about out there in the dark. It’s kind of creepy around here, and anyone could be lurking outside. You brush off the cushions and sit down. Was that creak from this old couch? Must have been. Well, let’s see what’s on at this hour…

JuanSpotters is a Cooper Halloween artifact, created around the persona of Juan Espinoza, and is an iteration JuanSpotters from 2012’s Interaction Design for Monsters. This year’s ghost busters are…

  • Chris Noessel
  • Cameron Winchester
  • Kathryn Estocapio
  • (and our headless ghost) Alex Mandel
  • (Cinematographer and crewperson) Benjamin Remington

Special shout-out to Rohan Malpani, who was to be our Billy Mays until time ran out on his internship before shooting.

Easy Win: Photoshop

Being an interaction designer means you’re aware of improvements that can be made in the things you use every day. This one is about the crop tool found in the most popular digital image manipulation software, Photoshop. Hey, Adobe! Here’s an easy win.

Easywin01.png

Read More

Pair Design and the Power of Thought Partnership

From Lennon & McCartney to Holmes & Watson, popular culture is teeming with examples of creative pairs. When we think about famous creative partnerships like Eames & Eames, or creative problem solvers like Mulder & Scully, what’s special about them?

In addition to their individual genius, what makes these pairs so effective (and what we’re talking about when we advocate Pair Design) is that these are true thought partnerships, in which each person has…​

  • shared ownership of what they’re creating
  • shared responsibility for making it great
  • shared risks and rewards if they succeed or fail

Read More

Planets Don’t Have Orbits

I heard an argument forwarded by Andrew Hinton way back in Dublin at the Inteaction12 conference. The short form goes like this: “Users don’t have goals.” (UDHG for short.) Being a big believer in Goal-Directed Design, I thought the argument to be self-evidently flawed, but since it came up again as a question from a student at my Cooper U class in Berlin, I feel I ought to address it.

Are there, in fact, goals?

Given just those four words, it seems like it might be about users actually not having goals. But of course, goals do exist. If they didn’t, why would anyone get out of bed in the morning? Or do work? Or make conference presentations? If we didn’t have goals, nothing would be happening in the world around us. But of course we do we do get out of bed. We do work. We write blog posts. All because we have reasons which—for clarity—we call goals. This example illustrates that what UDHG really means that most people don’t have explicit goals.

Read More

Barry the Blog Post…

…or, Why Silly Names Make Silly Personas, and 8 Tips to Getting Your Personas Named More Effectively

You’ve seen them before and unfortunately, you’ll see them again. Personas with names like Sarah the Security-Minded, Adam the Artist, Gloomy Gus, or Uzziah the Uppity Unix User. (Wait. You don’t have a persona named Uzziah?)

“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose / By any other name would smell as sweet.”
—Romeo & Juliet, Act II scene 2

A quick word about doing this sort of thing. Don’t. On one level, sure, it works. The alliteration helps you remember both the name and the salient characteristic that that persona is meant to embody. Who was Gus? Oh that’s right. The gloomy one.

Read More

OS Naught

For immediate release:
In a bold move, Apple has announced the business strategy for “OS Naught,” the next version of its popular operating system for Mac, iPhone, and iPod. In a press release delivered to industry insiders by conference call last evening, Apple CEO Timothy Cook explained that the OS, to be not released in Q3 2014, will require users to pay Apple as if a major update to the OS had been provided, but will actually contain no changes at all.

OS Naught logo

Read More

SXSWi recap

Gettin’ Bizzy with Pair Design

I went to SxSW Interactive to give a next-version talk about Pair Design with fellow Cooperista Suzy Thompson. It was much improved from the first draft, which was delivered in Amsterdam earlier this year at Interaction14, and the audience was a smart group of deeply engaged designers. (Shouts out to everyone who attended.)

Image by Senan Ryan

Read More

What you’ll like for dinner

Or: How persuasive design saved my lunch

While I was on route to Amsterdam for IXDA14, something struck me about the way the dinner options were presented to passengers. Here’s what was happening. The flight attendant delivered the menu in the same way to each row:

“Would you like barbeque chicken, beef strip, or vegetarian?”

I’ve been a vegetarian for twenty years now, and I’m a little sensitive to these moments. At first, my identity hackles were raised. “Hey!” I thought, “Why wouldn’t it be ‘Chicken, beef, and spicy red-beans-and-rice?’ We eat food, not a category of food! Those options should be presented as equals because we’re equals…Blah blah blah…ramble ramble…”

Fortunately, as is my habit, I caught myself mid rant, and tried to consider what was good about it. And sure enough, on reflection it’s the exact right way to present these options. Cooper’s been paying more attention to persuasive design of late, so let me explain, because that’s exactly what’s going on. The flight attendants are using choice architecture to keep vegetarians fed.

You see, one of the problems that vegetarians encounter when eating buffet-style with omnivores is that when there is a veggie option present, if it’s too good, there’s a risk that the omnivores will eat all the veggie stuff before we get to the front of the line, leaving us poor suckers with empty plates and sad-trombone bellies.

If the attendant presented “chicken, beef, and spicy red-beans-and-rice,” that’s exactly what’s at risk. An omnivore hearing that might think, “Hey, I’m a huge fan of spicy red beans and rice! Cajun spice is awesome. Bam! Let’s kick it up a notch!”

But when hearing a menu consisting of two easy-to-visualize options and the category of “vegetarian,” omnivores are more likely to be turned off by that third option. “Vegetarian? Screw that. I’m not a vegetarian. I like my meat heaping and with a side of meat. Meat me up, attendant, with the finest, meatiest meatings you have!” They’re less likely to ask after the actual contents of the vegetarian option, as they’re busy thinking about whether they’d like chicken or beef.

Meanwhile the vegetarians (even if their delicate identities are a bit bruised) are relieved when they hear that their needs have been considered. The unlucky ones in the very back of the plane (who failed to arrange a special meal in advance) might even get to eat.

descriptive option categorical option
omnivores Might choose :) Less likely to choose, still :)
vegetarians Less to eat :( More to eat :)

It’s not foolproof, of course, but I’ll bet if we could do a plane-by-plane comparison of “vegetarian” vs. “red beans and rice”, the categorical option would result in much more of everyone being happy. And that’s one of the powers of well-done choice architecture.

1 2 3 7