- You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.
- You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
- You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
- Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
Previously: How to apologize
Love [this framework from Charley Scandlyn on how to apologize](https://alldayeverywhere.com/2015/01/21/six-steps-to-sorry):
> 1. I did this (Acknowledgement)
2. It was wrong (Understanding)
3. I’m sorry (Remorse)
4. Please forgive me (Request)
5. I commit to new behavior (Repentance)
6. I will do the work I need to do to repair the damage I have caused (Restoration)
Some surprisingly good [theses of technology](http://iasc-culture.org/THR/channels/Infernal_Machine/2015/03/79-theses-on-technology-for-disputation/) by [Alan Jacobs](http://ayjay.org/). He’s really not a fan of [Kevin Kelly](http://kk.org/). A few of my favorites:
* To “pay” attention is not a metaphor: Attending to something is an economic exercise, an exchange with uncertain returns.
* Mindfulness reduces mental health to a single, simple technique that delivers its user from the obligation to ask any awkward questions about what his or her mind is and is not attending to.
* The only mindfulness worth cultivating will be teleological through and through.
* Digital textuality offers us the chance to restore commentary to its pre-modern place as the central scholarly genre.
* [Kevin] Kelly tells us “What Technology Wants,” but it doesn’t: We want, with technology as our instrument.
* The contemporary version of the pathetic fallacy is to attribute agency not to nature but to algorithms—as though humans don’t write algorithms. But they do.
* What does it say about our understanding of human intelligence that we think it is something that can be assessed by a one-off “test” [the Turing Test]—and one that is no test at all, but an impression of the moment?
* The chief purpose of technology under capitalism is to make commonplace actions one had long done painlessly seem intolerable.
* Embrace the now intolerable.
* Everyone should sometimes write by hand, to recall what it’s like to have second thoughts before the first ones are completely recorded.
* To shift from typing to (hand)writing to speaking is to be instructed in the relations among minds, bodies, and technologies.
* The always-connected forget the pleasures of disconnection, then become impervious to them.
*
>”Once upon a time.” Four words. I don’t need to say anything more, and yet you know at once what it is you’re about to hear. You may not know the precise contents. You may not recognize the specific characters. You may have little notion of the exact action that is about to unfold. But you are ready all the same to take on all of these unknowns, the uncertainties, the ambiguities. You are ready to succumb to the world of the story…
> First, there is that semblance of distance. We are not in the now, but rather in some place in the removed past…
> Distance is a psychologically powerful tool. It can allow us to process things that we would otherwise be unable to deal with—and I mean this in both a literal and a more metaphorical, emotional sense—and it frees up our mind in a way that immediacy does not.
> Second, there is the vagueness, the deliberate lack of specificity…that which scares us in real life—the lack of definitions, rules, clearly defined borders and boundaries—is not only unscary but entirely welcomed in the fairytale…I can indulge in abstraction and play, engage my curiosity and foster my creativity, and remain the whole time protected by that vague veneer of “once”.
[An insightful article and nice tribute to Maurice Sendak](http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/literally-psyched/2012/05/08/the-power-of-once-upon-a-time-a-story-to-tame-the-wild-things/).
“Consumer” is one of those words I’ve never been comfortable with. Along with “user”, it refers to real people as simply receptacles for whatever companies churn out for them. It’s a lazy, impersonal, demeaning, and ultimately unhelpful word.
[Alex Bogusky thinks that as consumption is inevitable, people just need to be *better* consumers](http://fearlessrevolution.com/blog/the-empowered-consumer.html). I agree that’s needed, but still believe our word choice matters and can be improved. [Lots of other people think so too](http://www.google.com/search?q=%22the+word+consumer%22).
The most obvious and simple change is to substitute “people” for these dirty words. That works almost universally, and I use it effectively in my design practice. But today I stumbled upon a use of another word that is more than benign–it’s empowering:
[Transformation](http://www.natlogic.com/resources/publications/new-bottom-line/vol4/12-more-things-change-production-transformation/).
The article itself takes the side of “producers”, acknowledging that nothing is truly produced; it is merely transformed from one (perhaps natural) state to another. Carrying that theme through to the people we design for emphasizes that they too will transform what they receive, putting their stamp on it, doing good or ill with it.
Transformation happens to products, commodities, experiences, and ideas. The word transformation recognizes that people have the opportunity to improve what they receive, but also the responsibility of managing it.
I’m going to try substituting the word “transformer” for “person” in my work–probably just to myself at first–to see if it changes my design decisions.
A friend explained some of the intricacies of Arabic to me the other night; I thought I’d write down the most striking aspects:
* Status in the ancient Arab world was greatly influenced by your language abilities. Ancient heroes were language experts, not usually warriors or political leaders.
* The Koran, in fact, was especially notable due to its masterful Arabic language. The quality of the writing was what gave it authenticity.
* Perhaps because of this, the ancient vocabulary was much bigger than today’s.
* Arabic generally uses a single, unique word to express even complex subjects. It does not use prefixes or suffixes to build word, so words with similar meaning can sound very different.
* The written language mostly omits vowels.
* Objects (“table”) have gender and verbs depend on which gender the person you’re speaking about is.
* Plurals have a special case when there’s exactly two of something.
* Students generally enter university without any formal training in grammar. Most take an introduction to it just to experience how difficult it is.
* The meaning of a word depends on its position in the sentence and its pronunciation.
* Ancient writing can still be read, as the script is much the same.
* Poets would battle each other – just meet and try to impress each other with their command of language. One famous story tells of a poet who amazed his challenger by responding with a sentence that was a complete palindrome and still fit the conversation.
* When a line doesn’t work, the phrase “it won’t rhyme” means it doesn’t match one of the [traditional 13 poem templates](http://awzan.com/bu7oor/bu7oor1.html).
* Every line has to fit [that pattern](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_prosody#A_-_The_original_fifteen).
“Design” is a big fuzzy word that means a lot of things to a lot of people. Sometimes when I introduce myself as a “designer”, people look skeptically at my jeans and sneakers and ask when my next runway show is scheduled. If I clarify that I’m a “product designer”, people immediately start telling me about their new cookware from Target–or more recently, their iPhone. And if I further specify that I mostly design websites, then I get “can you fix my computer?” Regardless, I’m always asked to produce the flyer for their next bake sale.
Talking about “design” is challenging because everyone interprets it differently–even among professional designers. Different fields and industries think about design in their own ways for their own reasons. Depending on the situation, the word “design” can even be a noun or a verb. I’m [a big believer](http://bob.ryskamp.org/brain/?p=2092) in the power of precise language, so I took some time to clarify what I’m talking about when I talk about “design”.
My favorite overall definition of “design” is a recent one from Rebekah Cox: “[a] [design is a set of decisions about a product](http://www.quora.com/Rebekah-Cox/Design-Quora-Web2-0-Expo-Presentation)”. It gets to the important point that what matters is what the entire product team ends up agreeing to do. Steve Jobs goes further: “[Design is how it works](http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/30/magazine/30IPOD.html)”.
Both of these definitions expand the understanding of design beyond the typical “making things pretty”, which is great. But they go so broad that they’re almost useless in practice. Great, design is a set of decisions. So who makes those decisions? How will you go about it? How can you become better at it? To make progress, you need to go at least one level further, and talk about the *types* of decisions you’re making, who makes them, and what activities can help you do that.
So when I talk about design, I try to specify which of a few distinct fields–or sets of decisions–I’m referring to: concept design, visual design, interaction design, engineering design, or business design. Together, decisions in these areas make up “the design” of a product, service, or experience.
Here’s how I define those subareas of design:
A *concept design* expresses the core ideas behind a product, especially what makes it valuable to people. Creating a concept design often involves discovery research, brainstorming, and concept visualization. I use concept design techniques to quickly explore a number of different opportunities for a product, expecting that 95% will be scrapped. Concept designs are thus usually created using lightweight techniques, including writing, sketching, and role-playing, and include descriptions of key benefits, possible product taglines, and quick visualizations of unique features.
But while these designs are lightweight and high-level, I believe they are the most important step in the product design process. It’s absolutely crucial to get the team agreed on the overall product direction and what it’s bringing to the world, and the only way to do that is with a very simple and clear definition–a concept design. This is the area that I’ve spent most of my time and energy working on for the past 3 years, and the part of the design process [I most enjoy](http://www.ryskamp.org/brain/?category_name=concept-design).
I’ve found the most success when each person on a diverse team–”designers”, engineers, businesspeople–creates and proposes their own concept designs. But instead of then trying to consolidate and unify them, I think it’s important to choose a single concept and rally behind it. Sometimes that concept is created by a professional designer; other times it’s an engineer or businessperson with a clear insight. It may take several iterations before there is a single concept with sufficient support from the team. But since focus is the goal of concept design, choosing a single target is essential.
(Sometimes the term “concept design” is used to describe a highly-polished speculative or futuristic depiction of a product or service. While I also use that technique, I refer to those artifacts as “product visions” and try to reserve the term “concept design” for the description of the core ideas behind a product proposal, which usually includes more information and less flash.)
*Interaction design* is the plan for how people interact with a product or service, focusing on the practical and mechanical aspects of the experience. It includes designing the touchpoints, interfaces, and relationships between people and the product. For software, this is usually centered around a digital interface, but as devices get smaller and more diverse it is becoming less about the direct product interaction and more about the overall experience. And of course interactions aren’t limited to electronic products–I consider the use of physical products, ergonomic issues, and (designed) interactions with other people also part of the interaction design field.
*Visual design* is how something looks. It’s a bit arbitrary to separate out the visual parts of an interaction from the tactile, but in my experience they involve different skills and are experienced uniquely. Visual design involves color, contrast, shape, pattern, texture, and more. I also consider movement and transformation as increasingly important visual design techniques. Despite the common understanding of design as “making things pretty”–a very visual criteria–this is not my strength, and something I’m working to improve as the bar for visual experiences in technology is continuously raised.
(This might be better called “aesthetic design”, but I’ve never heard anyone talk about being an “aesthetic designer” or doing aesthetic design work, and people who call themselves “visual designers” tend to do everything I’ve mentioned quite well.)
*Engineering design* is how something will be built and manufactured. Despite its differences from the previous fields, in some technically-focused industries this is the main definition of design. I consider engineering as a design field because technical insights can both constrain and empower the other design decisions. With only a few exceptions, a great design depends on great engineering decisions. Jonathan Ive, for example, regularly [cites engineering decisions](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RKo44GsGow&feature=player_embedded) in his explanation of Apple product design.
As most technologies are highly advanced, engineering design is generally led by professional engineers. Personally, I know just enough technical things to be dangerous, and try to work with design engineers who are skilled at translating technical insights into product ideas.
*Business design* is the set of decisions about how a product will be a sustainable business. To be fair, I’ve only ever heard this used by the [design thinking](http://www.ryskamp.org/brain/?p=218) cabal, so it may be a made-up term. Still, as business decisions, like engineering ones, influence what you can and can’t do in the other design fields, it’s important to consider them as part of your design process.
In the best case, a creative business insight can enable new types of interaction possibilities, like the work [IDEO did](http://www.ideo.com/work/long-haul-travel-experience/) with Air New Zealand to realize [the “SkyCouch” seats](http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/3262044/Air-NZs-Skycouch-to-cost-1400) which are both a better experience for fliers and profitable for the airline.
The “design”, then, is the union of all these decisions for a given product or service. Whether or not you make each decision consciously, they all influence how your product is perceived and used. And if you do consider each of these fields in your design process, you’re more likely to come up with a creative, unique, robust, and sustainable solution.
As a professional designer, I try to incorporate all of these fields, and specialists in each area, in the design process for projects. My best design experiences (and outcomes) were collaborations with experts in engineering, visual design, and business, creating focused concepts that we were all excited about. It’s as much a social challenge as a mechanical one, requiring precisely-timed and -planned activities and mutual trust.
Design *is* a set of decisions, and “how it works”, and it is also how you get there. So that’s what I talk about when I talk about design.
p.s. What I’m not talking about
“User experience” usually refers to someone’s entire experience with a product or service, including what they do and how they feel. This is mostly out of your hands, but it can of course be influenced by the design. As a practical distinction, I believe that you evaluate the user experience, and design the product to encourage certain outcomes. I also dislike the dehumanizing word “user”, so I try to be more precise in my speaking and writing.
“Industrial design”, a term typically used with physical products only, combines visual design and physical interaction design, so I usually talk about those instead. I don’t really like the term itself either, as it focuses too strongly on business (“industry”) uses.
Fascinating article in the NY Times that explores how language shapes the way we think about the world. Different languages, different ways of experiencing it.
> When your language routinely obliges you to specify certain types of information, it forces you to be attentive to certain details in the world and to certain aspects of experience that speakers of other languages may not be required to think about all the time. And since such habits of speech are cultivated from the earliest age, it is only natural that they can settle into habits of mind that go beyond language itself, affecting your experiences, perceptions, associations, feelings, memories and orientation in the world.
Similar to my observations about [how language affects meaning](http://www.ryskamp.org/brain/?p=68) from years ago.
Mamihlapinatapai is a word from the Yaghan language of Tierra del Fuego, listed in The Guinness Book of World Records as the "most succinct word", and is considered one of the hardest words to translate. It describes "a look shared by two people with each wishing that the other will initiate something that both desire but which neither one wants to start."
There are so many perfect situations for this word…more at Mamihlapinatapai – Wikipedia.