It’s a special treat to be able to leave your house at 9am, travel to another country, watch the world’s greatest cyclist win the most difficult Grand Tour in recent memory in one of Europe’s most picturesque cities, and be home to sleep in your own bed that night.
I still remember the exact moment I realized that I didn’t have to believe everything I read in books; that some things that are printed are not actually true (it was embarrassingly late, I’m afraid).
Apparently [some people have yet to make that leap](http://literallyunbelievable.tumblr.com/).
[Tony Schwartz shares some realistic tips for getting important things done](http://blogs.hbr.org/schwartz/2011/05/the-only-way-to-get-important.html).
I like the idea to plan your first activity the night before, and spending 90 minutes on it before thinking too much about it.
His philosophy of limiting your conscious decisions also rings true; [as Flaubert said](http://www.ryskamp.org/brain/?p=225):
> Be regular and orderly in your life so that you may be violent and original in your work.
Just found out that a single coworker of mine:
1. [Played drums in They Might Be Giants](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtTBzj9yGAI)
2. Created [Wordle](http://www.wordle.net/)
3. Built [a tool to discover accidental haikus in Twitter](http://mrfeinberg.com/twaiku/)
I think he wins the internet.
“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.
Just found out that I’m the same age as Bart Simpson. And yes, [that does make me feel old](http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/40-things-that-will-make-you-feel-old).
…to have your safety helmet read “Die” on the side. The liability form was covered in the word as well.
From a ropes course offsite today near Luzern.
Reminds me of [The Simpsons’ take on German](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrTGyGSdrtI) (German translation, which is even more confusing)
[Bob is the 2nd most common CEO name on LinkedIn](http://blog.linkedin.com/2011/04/27/top-ceo-names/). Now I’ve just got to get rid of that “Peter” guy…
Or move to Brazil, where the top CEO name is “Roberto”.
Rode around Amsterdam in the morning; rode around Zurich in the evening. Cycling on TV in the airport bar.
Nice.
cross-posted from [our Swisskamps blog](http://www.swisskamps.com/)
Ever since moving to Zurich, I’d had my eye on the Swiss National Cycling Routes. These signposted routes criss-cross the country, each featuring different aspects of the land and people. Throughout the winter, I checked out sections online, hoping that I could fit in one of these tours sometime. The Alpine routes were still blocked by snow, but the Lakes Route from Montreux to Rorschach looked pretty nice, and an extension to Geneva would even make it cross-country. It had been 12 years since my last multi-day cycling trip, and I was excited to give it a try.
So when Megan and her mother took off to Spain for a week, I packed a few basics in my new backpack and wheeled my bike onto an ICN train headed for Geneva. It was a strange feeling to shoot across the country with only a one-way ticket and my bike; with each passing village I realized that only my own legs would carry me home.
Tuesday – Geneva to Vevey, 97 km
I arrived in Geneva at 1pm Tuesday under dark skies and a cool wind. I wasn’t going to let the 20% chance of rain stop me, so I set off along the eastern shore of Lake Geneva, quickly connecting with the Rhone Route, which I would use to connect with the Lakes Route near Montreux. I made a short detour to dip my wheels into France at Ferney-Voltaire, then headed northeast around the lake.
The rest of the day was spent tucked down, pushing through the northerly headwind that would be with me throughout the tour. The official route zig-zagged through small towns, up and down the shore, and I often lost it. But since I knew the general direction, I’d eventually pick it up again.
I arrived in Vevey, neighbor to Montreux, and found a designer hotel up the hill from the old town. I quickly cleaned up, then headed to town for some sunset photos and a well-deserved dinner.
During long rides, I often get songs stuck in my head. This makes for an interesting 6-8 hours on the bike on these long trips. The song stuck in my head today: Smoke on the Water (“We all came out to Montreux, on the Lake Geneva shoreline…”).
Wednesday – Vevey to Interlaken, 160 km
Wednesday dawned sunny and clear in Vevey, which made it much easier to get back on the bike. My legs were a bit tight, but I felt ready for a big day. That was fortunate, as the road out of town went straight into the hills. I climbed 486 meters (~1500ft) before the road flattened out into a plateau, where the wind picked up and the temperature dropped. I dug all my warm clothes out of my pack, fashioned my arm warmers into calf warmers, and fought the wind until I made it into the Gruyère valley.
There, the wind calmed down as trees became thicker and the grass grew green and lush. I toured for 60 kilometers around the valley, stopping for a lunch of bread and cheese in Zwisimmen after descending from the highest point of the ride, the Saanenmöser Pass at 1279 meters.
From there it was an up-and-down route through the Simmental valley toward Spiez and Interlaken. At the end of 160 kilometers (~100 miles) in the mountains, I was feeling every rise and was glad to pull into Interlaken at 5:30pm, after 8 1/2 hours of riding. Another quick shower, then a walk through the town to watch the sunset hanggliders and find a good Italian restaurant.
Song stuck in my head today: Santa Fe from Rent (not sure why…maybe the fleeing of cold for sun?)
Thursday – Interlaken to Zug, 123 km
The next morning I was really feeling the prior day’s effort, so I set an easy goal of reaching Lucerne (70km) with a stretch goal of Zug (100km). I rolled out of Interlaken under more clouds, with my arm warmers still protecting my calves. My left calf was especially tender, so I lowered my seat to protect it and shifted my position a bit. This would come back to get me later.
One highlight just out of town was the Giessbach waterfalls, which tumble down 14 levels to the Brienzersee. I rolled my bike on the catwalk under the cliff and was glad for my waterproof jacket.
I climbed out of the valley via the Brünigpass, accessed via a steep dirt road (9% average for 5km). The backside was a screaming descent that I interrupted for a photo of Lungern and the Lungerersee below. Cruising through the Sarnen valley, past several more lakes, brought me to Lucerne. I still felt good, so I pushed on to Zug, riding for about 15km on a dirt path and through fields of wildflowers and even a tulip patch near town. I stuffed myself with pizza and went to sleep in perhaps the smallest hotel room I’ve ever encountered.
Song stuck in my head today: Christmas is All Around from Love Actually (the cold got to me…”I feel it in my fingers; I feel it in my toes”)
Friday – Zug to Zurich, 85 km
Friday morning I rolled out a bit late. My right knee had started to twinge at the end of the ride to Zug, and I wanted to stretch and warm it up before climbing to Biberbrugg, the only major uphill of the day. I rolled along a quiet road which slowly ascended into the woods, eventually turning into a dirt path.
My knee was starting to hurt quite a bit, and I decided that I would target Zurich instead of continuing all the way to St. Gallen and Rorschach. I wouldn’t make it all the way across the country, but I didn’t want to pedal in misery for 130 more kilometers. Of course, by favoring my right knee, I worked my left leg twice as hard and put more weight on my seat and hands, which promptly started to complain as well.
I limped around the beautiful Ägerisee, over the Biberbrugg pass, and cruised down through Schindellegi on familiar roads–I was now back within day trip territory. But in a final moment of stubbornness, I decided to take the long way around the Zurichsee, crossing the lake at Rapperswil and riding up the east coast.
Song stuck in my head today: one with words unsuitable for a family blog (my response to my knee, the headwind, and the endless little unexpected climbs along the route =)
I arrived home feeling thoroughly exhausted–muscles, joints, mind–but proud of a strong ride. 465 kilometers and 5000 meters of climbing in 4 days. I love waking up in the morning with only the goal to get yourself to another town, and over four days I felt like I was melding with my bike as my pedaling became smoother and more efficient. I took a couple easy recovery rides on Saturday and Sunday, and hopefully I’ll carry this good form into the summer and on our trip back to California in May–I’ve got to keep up with my old riding buddies!
– Bob