Permalink | Leave a comment  »

I found this looking around for the narrative of the Burroughs text, which is sampled in a house record I've been playing for a year or so (I'll post that one of these days shortly). Needless to say I was surprised to find it was from this—a short from a young Gus Van Sant from 1982.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

A close friend of mine is the creative services manager for a high-profile agency in the US that has won a lot of hardware and has an excruciatingly high standard for creative recruitment. I was talking to this person today and she said this:

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

FAIL.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

This is a response to Peter Merholz's article on the Adaptive Path blog entitled 'The Pernicious Effects of Advertising and Marketing Agencies Trying To Deliver User Experience Design.' It's crap. Here's why.

I am an experience designer working in one of the "soulless holes" Peter refers to. In fact, at this particular agency, I've just started the UX capability. I am currently a department of one.

If there is a tiny shred of truth to this rant, it’s this: the agency business still places an unhealthy cultural value on the vision of the copywriter/art director team, and lacks an appreciation or understanding of the value of utility.

The key to shifting these perceptions and changing the fiber of the industry is trust.

The thing about trust is that it has to be earned.

I could scream from the hilltops how wrong everyone is about what I do. I could print out thousands articles from Boxes and Arrows or compile every great marketing usability study and put them on the desks of my fellow creative directors. I could hire Donald Norman himself to come walk around the halls for a few weeks and say brilliant things.

It wouldn't matter; people change slowly, organizations more so, and industries slower still.

So I toil to earn that trust as part of a small but growing number of new-era creative marketers who wish to shift the paradigm away from the caricature Peter paints in this post. Unfortunately, it only takes one dude at a cocktail party like Peter to spout some self-righteous shit and undo a couple months of hard work.

The irony of this entire affair is that the vitriol that Mr. Merholz spits about the advertising world is born from the same stuff that makes up the creative director ego.

Peter’s tirade is really about who get’s to call what they do “UX.”

It’s practically identical to the frustration my fellow art directors and copywriters have had in the past with the idea of we UX people—who conduct research and design for familiarity instead of disruption—being called “creatives.”

This article reminds me of a couple of times during my career where I have worked with academically trained UX designers who were completely new to the ad agency environment. Inevitably they became frustrated with the lack of research opportunities and that data isn’t driving the design process. They struggled with the small scope and relative lack of importance in their projects—constantly designing the environmental responsibility section of a corporate website, but never designing the new pharmacy bottles for Target.

They start to realize that this department, while based in the same principles of what they have read about and studied academically, is something different than what they imagined they would be doing. It isn’t Cooper or IDEO. They aren’t designing iPods. They’re making advertising.

Peter actually outs himself in the article:

This post really is about a deep frustration with seeing my friends join such agencies only to find themselves miserable, and working with clients who have had terrible experiences with such firms, and because of that are suspicious of any form of consulting. 

This little outburst isn’t about purity of purpose or the lack thereof. It isn’t about philosophy at all. It’s about branding.

And while my work may not be as important as designing a child-friendly interface for a pediatric insulin pump, or as glamorous as designing the shopping experience for the 5^th Avenue Prada store, I’m content with my toil.

So I say, to the Peters of the world—shelve it. We’ve read all the same books and blogs that you have. We have just a pure a drive to design for people. We’re just working in a much tougher industry. 

Throughout your life you’ll probably encounter ads a lot more often than you will that Prada store. You should be thanking us for making that shit a bit more user friendly. 

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Bang. Zoom. Right in the replication stack. Why can't I get away from this god forsaken software... :(

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

See the full gallery on Posterous

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

(Made by Dave Makes - via @laughingsquid)

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Apparently this captcha is a Twilight fan. (This would explain the terrible spelling.)

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Since the first units started arriving a day early at people’s homes this Wednesday, the Internet has been abuzz with surprise, outrage, fear, concern, etc. that the new iPhone 4 has a critical design flaw.  It now seems clear that holding the device in such a way that the bottom-left corner antennae are shorted by conductivity through the hands of the user will significantly weaken, or completely inhibit, the device’s ability to communicate with cellular networks.

Initial reports were countered with a citation from the Walt Mossberg review of the device in the Wall Street Journal that the rapidly dropping bars were merely a software glitch—one that would be rectified quickly. However, several independent tests from new owners seem to indicate that data connectivity, not just a visual representation of it, is, in fact, being lost. I have personally noticed this; when I hold my device in the aforementioned manner, web pages will not load via 3G. However, when I set the device down, connectivity is almost immediately restored.

As more early adopters finished a lengthy wait in line and took ownership of their new iPhones, the reports have escalated, from YouTube videos, to CNN and Good Morning America. There is little doubt at this point that this is a very real and dramatic design flaw.

 

How can we be sure this is really a flaw?

Yesterday afternoon, Spencer Webb, a professional RF systems engineer for AntennaSys wrote a very articulate blog entry on why this has happened, suggesting that most all phones suffer from this type of defect based on how the mobile operators and the FCC test cellular devices for radiation absorption. Others (including **Apple themselves**) have suggested that all mobile phones suffer from signal problems when held—a natural and unavoidable causation of insulating the phone with the user’s hand.

However, there is heaps of evidence (particularly this video of a user demonstrating the phenomenon with a metal key as a conductor) that, with the iPhone 4, the phenomenon is localized to conductivity at one specific point on the frame.  This makes sense, given the image of the antennae layout presented by Jobs at the device’s unveiling.

Moreover, the best evidence that there is a defect comes from Steven P. Jobs, himself. This morning, he responded to a customer email complaining about the issue. In his typically terse style, he states, “Just avoid holding it in that way.” Giving Jobs the benefit of the doubt on the tone of the response (hey, he’s the CEO of the worlds largest tech company, he probably doesn’t have the time to write you a fucking book), the sentence still seems to acknowledge that holding the phone in a way that shorts the antennae does, in fact, hinder performance.

So here we are: the new iPhone is here—the phone that will change everything all over again—and it has to be held in a specific way to function properly. Shit.

Why this really sucks.

When a customer has enough loyalty in a brand to stand in line for 4+ hours and plunk down a few hundred dollars for a device they haven’t even seen in person, they expect a lot (and rightly so).

While this cult-like mentality helps drive massive sales, all too often it also backfires on Apple. Small manufacturing defects that would go completely unnoticed (or cause a simple product exchange at the point of sale) explode into Internet “stories.” Forums light up like Christmas trees with angry customers, scrutinizing their devices, searching for any lack of perfection and screaming about it from the Internet’s rooftops.

In most cases, I ignore this banter. Apple has had a great track record, with only minor production and design flaws, for more than the past decade. This is particularly exceptional given the outer-limits of design they constantly strive for. And, nothing as complicated as a computer or Smartphone is going to roll off the assembly line in 100% perfect condition every time.

However, this is not one of the times I can ignore.

The reason this particular flaw is so egregious in the eyes of we early adopters is that the now-deemed-invalid way of holding the device is the way virtually every user of such a device would naturally hold it. Including, it seems, Mr. Jobs.

(Also note: Engadget has documented all of the scenes in the iPhone demonstration videos and advertising that depict a hand-hold that is now deemed to be “avoided.”)

Much talk of the flaw has suggested that it is an impairment for left-handed users when making calls. The truth is, the issue predominantly affects the opposite, and majority, user base—not during calls, but during web browsing and app use, arguably the majority of the iPhone’s utility.

When talking on the phone, most users use an index finger to push the device against their ear, and lightly pinch the sides of the device. Neither hand terribly infringes on the “no-go” spot during this type of use. 

However, when held low to view the screen, righties, like myself, tend to type, tap and navigate a touch screen device with their dominant hand, meaning they need to hold it in their left. When holding a thin, rectangular device that costs several hundred of your hard-earned dollars to replace, it’s natural to securely cup it from the bottom—between the device and the potential doom of gravity—and squeeze the sides. On the average human left hand, that presses the meat of the palm under the left thumb squarely against the lower-left corner of the device.

This is the reason this flaw is so exceptional. Had this problem manifested itself when conductivity was created between the two antennae on the top seam, it would be a much less serious issue to simply avoid placing a finger there. However, this flaw essentially invalidates the natural ergonomics of the device and the way we’ve grown accustomed to holding it for the past three years (see: photo above). For Jobs to dismiss this is insulting, particularly to a customer base that stood in line for hours within the same day.

How the hell could this happen?

Given Apple’s legendary status in industrial design, and their borderline-insane “don’t release until it’s perfect” mentality, it is seems almost beyond possibility that such a glaring design flaw could make it to the shipping product, especially on possibly their most anticipated device ever.

However, there are some clues that emerge thanks to the Gizmodo iPhone leak a few months ago. We now know (or can reasonably speculate) that Apple did their field testing of the baseband and RF communications on the new iPhone with it concealed in plastic cases that disguised the dramatically different form factor as a previous generation phone. Additionally, there are numerous reports that, on campus, testers have their devices secured to their desks and covered in black shrouds (such as this leaked photo of the iPad prototype on what appears to be a test bed, published by Engadget). If this is true to the extreme, it’s conceivable that Apple completed their field-testing of cellular connectivity without ever having a person directly touching the device—a remarkable instance where Apple’s legendary secrecy would actually be responsible for a critical flaw.

Is Apple going to do anything about this?

While Steve’s email may seem dismissive, I think there’s evidence that Apple has known of this issue since before the device launch (albeit not for very long), and absolutely plans on rectifying the problem. While Apple’s design philosophy may be pig-headed at times, the company does value its customers. Steve may be stubborn, but he’s not stupid.

The bumpers are a clue that Apple may have been aware of the defect ahead of time. A rubberized case is extremely uncharacteristic of Apple’s design philosophy. Steve himself has shown disdain in the past, that iPhone owners would take their beautiful device and enshroud it in cheap plastic. So why produce an Apple branded case alongside the device?

The Occam’s Razor theory would be that Apple’s design mafia designed the most minimalistic case possible, knowing that users wanted protection/personalization for their phones but not wanting to see them hide the beautiful glass front and back panels. However, the cynical view is that the “Bumper” is Apple’s design solution to the previously unnoticed defect.

Being so abnormal for Apple, I personally believe the bumpers are kludgey patch rather than an overpriced design accessory. Moreover, I assume the hardware engineering team has already set about developing a structural fix to insulate the antennae for future manufacturing runs—possibly already being employed on units being manufactured right now. If they haven’t, the pressure of the constantly growing negative press will likely force the issue.

So, what’s going to happen next?

The most likely scenario is that, very soon, Apple is going to give away a lot of free Bumpers. Someone is likely to file a class action suit (given the overwhelming amount of Apple-created media that demonstrates holding the phone in a way that is now “avoidable”), and/or the cost accountants at 1 Infinite Loop are soon to find that this bad press is far more expensive than a few million rubber bands.

In the long term, I imagine Apple will announce that they have revised the design of the iPhone to correct the flaw in the next few weeks, and offer free modifications to existing owners. This will likely mean a period of time waiting without a phone—probably a week—while they retrofit your device. It is conceivable they would offer free exchanges in the store, but given the existing supply shortage and the number of devices already sold, I think it’s unlikely they will accept so much responsibility as to create a backlog of 1.5 million+ refurbished units.

So, if I don’t have one, should I get one?

If you already use a case, and would have purchased one anyway, the answer is an unequivocal “yes.” The iPhone 4—with the exception of this admittedly egregious failing—is magnificent. The “Retina” display is mind-blowing, the camera is divine, and it’s just plain insanely fast. It is, even blemished, the best smart phone on the market by miles.

If you’re an insistent early adopter (like me), also “yes.” Apple will (eventually) rectify the problem. In the meantime, although annoying, you can shift your grip. And keep in mind—reports seem to clearly indicate that call drops are greatly reduced over previous models, so at least it will function as a phone while it moderately fails as a MID.

However, if this is your first iPhone, or you were already on the fence about the purchase: wait. Don’t buy anything else, mind you—you’ll regret that. But give yourself some pause until Apple acknowledges the issue and sets out an action plan for how they’re going to rectify it. Rest assured, they will. It’s already too ugly for them to avoid it.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Get used to it.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

See the full gallery on Posterous

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Iceland, Eyjafjallajökull - May 1st and 2nd, 2010 from Sean Stiegemeier on Vimeo.

(You really should click through and see it in HD. Thanks @copymatt.)

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

They still make TypeStyler?!

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

This was the first draft.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »