Boxes and Arrows: Comments by Brendan Hamley

Brendan Hamley — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 11:34:59 GMT

At our place, we’re not lucky enough to have an artist/illustrator on hand (or the time) to do this. We have successfully used Powerpoint however to construct scenarios and to illustrate what people are thinking and doing – what their interactions or expectations might be, and how a design proposition fits with user needs. A recent version involved slide backgrounds showing screenshots, user environment and circumstances etc, overlaid with pictures of personas with speech or thought bubbles indicating the dialogue between user, circumstance and system.

Essentially, like Rebekah’s solution the goal was to tell a complex story in a simple and friendly way.

Rebekah is absolutely right too. Even a rudimentary approach like using powerpoint helped us make these things come alive, and removed any ‘specialist sheen’ that can sometimes make a review audience uncomfortable. Using an older more ‘trusted’ communication medium, to illustrate the workings of a brand new one is a very powerful tool.

Brendan Hamley — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 21:22:43 GMT

Good thinking on this – thanks.

Does anyone remember when all clients wanted ‘sexy’ design? Makes me shudder. Seems to me we’re at a similar place with all this ‘rich’ stuff. ‘Rich’ seems like a way of expressing the layers within something, but not the layers themselves. For example, you can describe a seam of gold as being rich, but it doesn’t describe the gold itself, or the potential of it to produce beautiful artifacts.

Maybe it would be better to use the term ‘smart’ instead?

Chocolate, Kings and Impressionist Paintings are rich
Cars, cameras and expert friends are smart
Rich things are emotional and sensory.
Smart things are clever and useful.

Web interfaces are still in their infancy and personally, I don’t believe they are quite ready to define or deliver genuine richness to the masses. This mustn’t stop us trying to build richer environments, but let’s just aim to be a little smarter about how we go about it.

Brendan Hamley — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:11:05 GMT

How refreshing to find this! Managing a design team is so much tougher than being part of one. Design management is a sorely overlooked (and actually quite interesting) discipline, for the very reasons you mention. In a corporate context, the hardest thing is to quantify the management of something that’s so difficult to quantify – creativity. If you’re into ‘designing’ people and processes (as well as design itself of course) it’s very rewarding. It’s highly challenging though if you’re still expected to remain creative and come up with design innovations.

The Design Management Institute has lots of good resources and seminars on this very theme.

Brendan Hamley — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:12:07 GMT

The Design Management Institute has lots of good resources and seminars on this very theme.

Brendan Hamley — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 02:35:28 GMT

Insightful, honest and true! How good to see an ‘expert’ open enough to show it’s OK to admit to being wrong.

It’s a great article too, because it breathes life into the idea that we are people first and foremost – the determined expert persona is merely a useful by-product of this. I wonder, how many times we fail due to a misguided quest for self-worth through professional achievement? Perhaps we try too hard to convince ourselves (and others) that our professional beliefs and actions are the measure of who we are.

There’s a new mantra I’ve been hearing lately; ‘ignorance is power’. I suspect this means that knowing what you don’t know is far wiser and more powerful than blindly believing you know everything.

Good stuff and thanks.

Brendan Hamley — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 11:24:40 GMT

Consideration of the impact of words and language on Design solutions is sometimes lacking in IA thinking. This would make a great and useful read.

Co-incidently, someone recently flagged this up to me: http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/070312ruel/ I think there’s an interesting synergy between language/words and layout that could be explored further

Brendan Hamley — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:43:12 GMT

Sorry I can’t agree with that!

Maybe ignorance is/was the wrong word to use here, but the gist is that believing in something (insert: self/project/organisation/culture) 100% means there’s really no space for alternative options. From time to time, take the stance of someone who knows nothing and you may well help others (and yourself) to find the boundaries of what is REALLY known and understood about an issue.

In the world of experts and professionals the person who is prepared to say ‘I don’t understand why’ or, ‘explain this to me in ways even I can understand’ illicits either a) new knowledge for the endeavour or b) understanding of where further examination is needed. Not that I’m recommending putting colleagues and associates on the defensive of course, just that some good open, honest ‘kings new clothes’ type questions can really shed light where insight and knowledge may not freely available.

If some Easter Islanders had said; “Forgive our ignorance, but what will happen when the trees run out?” the resultant answer (or lack of one) might have saved their fate.

Brendan Hamley — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 17:23:28 GMT

A bit late, but nonetheless…

“There are three people who determine success of an online application form: the usability practitioner, the designer, and the user”

Undoubtable, but businesses commisioning online form design might (rightly) beg to differ. Business processes, technology, sector trends, working practices etc all strongly influence final output – regardless.

Additionally, the people who build online forms need to be considered at the design stage. You might have a great design, and users might love the prototype but, if it can’t be built, it won’t be built.

Far better to include, involve and embrace business and employees within the design process. Yes, any good usability consultant or designer should include such factors by default, but why can’t we as a community be more overt about this?

From experience as a designer with a large corporate, I’ve come to realise there are three main stakeholders for design success:

1) Customers
2) Business
3) Colleagues / employees

Focussing on where the interests of these three groups coincide, makes design success a lot more achievable. This doesn’t just refer to online forms of course, but in the context of this article is worth thinking about further.

P.S. Nice to see online form design getting a higher profile!

Brendan Hamley — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 12:12:31 GMT

Good stuff and as Bo indicates, really well thought out and put together.

Powerpoint is indeed a good prototype platform (though fiddly at times). It’s also an neat tool to help content producers quickly see their copy and content in context. A flat site template that allows for inclusion of proposed content can quickly show where readability or too much text can be an issue. Asking content owners to add the content/copy themselves helps them understand the constraints of available space and the context that it will appear within.

Finally, one note of caution about use of Powerpoint prototyping (particularly relating to highly polished designs). The The ubiquity of Powerpoint is a big plus but can lead to distribution beyond your intended audience. It’s crucial therefore to indicate that the design is ‘a prototype’ and state it’s specific purpose or you may find your Powerpoint can quite quickly become a full business specification or subject of extended debate.

Thanks.