Engineering Fun

This week's Flyover Effect podcast discussed an idea that is too often overlooked in the development of pretty much everything: Fun.

I often see a "lack of fun" in software- the program that was built to do a specific job well, but has an interface that is ugly, complicated, and hard to use. All of the build energy went into making the features work, but zero thought went into the person who has to use the thing.

A corollary: If users of your software have a bunch of sticky notes on their monitors to help them with their work, you need a redesign of the UI.

Fun design encourages a user to explore the software, not run from it as soon as the task is completed.

This carries forward into every product and service. If something is pleasant to deal with, people will do more with it, and thus spend more money. If something is hard, difficult and unpleasant, it will be avoided.

Too often businesses can't step out of their own shoes to view how the public interacts with them, and thus can't make the changes needed to up the "Fun" quotient. A lack of fun holds them back.

Design By Intent

I highly recommend this thought provoking read about Design By Intent.

The series of cards in the pdf each have examples of design that isn't simply nice to look at, but improves useability (in most cases).

Lots of things to chew on.

Thinking About Design

I've become a big fan of "The Flyover Effect", a podcast hosted by the staff at BitMethod.

Their discussions of design, UI and the general usability of life are always enlightening.

Subscribe, and dig through the archive. Lots of good thinking in there.

Know Your Presenter

Excuse the political message of this piece- watch for three things:

-Simplicity of message. A bunch of complicated ideas are boiled down to easily understood bits;
-A clarifying visual is used to illustrate each one;
-An understanding of who the presenter is, and what his strengths are.


"The Truth About The Economy in 2:15"

Robert Reich is 4' 10", but you have no hint of that in the video. The camera is below his eyeline, making him appear tall. The easel is at his height, keeping the perspectives right. He is well lit, and uses a mic so the audio is clear.

He also has art skills- which provides the visuals that move the piece along. The whole thing is well crafted.

Too often we allow our messages to be overwhelmed by the details. Step back, look at the big (possibly cartoon) picture, and simplify.

Marginal Improvement

Every product category has several price points, and at each one you get an improvement in some factor: quality, design, useability, durability, prestige, etc.

Few of us have the budget to enjoy the best of everything. Instead, we pick and choose, sacrificing here to indulge there. Ramen noodles for dinner in exchange for expensive coffee in the morning.

I find I'm seldom disappointed in buying the higher quality product, and they have a lower cost of ownership over their useful lives than cheap things. The hard part is determining what items will really be of value to me long-term.

One yardstick is good design. I find that companies that put a lot of thought and effort into good design of the product and packaging have probably put the same thought and effort into everything. The odds of it being worth the cost go way up.

In a crowded market you have to eliminate options quickly. I start by pushing the ugly choices off the menu.

Peter

Theory

Conceptual physicists believe there is a Theory Of Everything- one nice neat way to tie together the universe, which works in opposite ways at the biggest and smallest scales.

That is a very human urge, and we're good at it: looking for simplicity in noisy environments, latching onto random bits of data as the explanation for larger events, or simply picking out evidence that supports what we want to be true.

Many grand plans, designed as simple solutions to problems, often fall apart during implementation as the dirty reality on the ground doesn't fall neatly into line. While the Grand Plan may act as a guide in daily decision making, their are simply too many details to shoehorn into neat policies.

Organizations who try to be too simplistic may feel good at the roll-out, but will struggle when human nature begins to weigh in.

Peter