Thoughts on Data, design…and soul

Some key thoughts from the blog post ghostinthepixel.com,
it is useful to think of where a model would position itself in relation to this discussion -
Does the model have to be data driven? I would hope not... As pointed out “It is more from engaging with users, watching what they do, understanding their pain points, that you get big leaps in design.” This again is pointing to how a model may lead to such discussions - with the value of data and value of data taken from the context ?
The full discussion is below:

Data, design…and soul

Following up on the initial posting on Google’s “data-driven” ethos by web designer extraordinaire Doug Bowman, and the subsequent heated debate on data vs. design (on ixda, etc.), another web design guru, Luke Wroblewski has published a beautifully compact articulation pointing out the falsity of the debate (which the NYTimes even used in their article title over the weekend–hmm!). Indeed it’s not a conflict, but a parallel dialogue of approaches and viewpoints, working together.

As Luke says:

1. Data informs design
2. A handle on design builds credibility
3. Data is not the only way to make decisions

Nice!

On the same topic, Luke Stevens published this lengthy read teasing apart the issues of “data vs. design”, largely defending data-driven design with thoughtful explanation, but avoiding the typical holy war of righteous indignation.

Ok, that’s fine. However, my issue isn’t really that data drives design or not, but the following:

1. What is meant by data? Seriously. This may sound like a naive question but certainly in light of ethnography, affective studies, personal storytelling, etc (and more from Jane Fulton Suri, Liz Sanders, Brenda Laurel, among others). I’d say the parameters of what constitutes “data” are broadening. I fear there is such rigid attachment by researchers, marketers, engineers to just numerical studies that there is a blind spot to other kinds of data…

In addition to the conventions of web analytics and statistically quantifiable numeric studies/surveys/measurements, there must be room for the data of past professional experience, evolved and applied patterns/principles/guidelines, and yes personal intuition via judgement and thoughtful insight (developed over time with exposure to projects, clients, etc.)

I suspect that a rigid adherence to only numerical data is actually just a snub of contemptuous disrespect for trusting a learned and experienced designer’s judgement, which is multidimensional and dynamic…and evolving.

2. What about the soul of a design? How does extensive numerical data studies enable the aesthetic character, the humanizing quality, the elusive wonderment that makes a design resonate with one’s dreams and desires? “To light a fire in the mind and breathe life into the heart”, as former Sony head of design once described some compelling design concepts, is not something numbers can do. It takes a genuinely inspired and talented human being to elicit forth such qualities in pixels and matter, through a complex messy amalgam of culture, expression, arts, language, style, and so forth. There is an ineffable quality that transcends mere numbers, suggesting a poetic graceful elegance…a kind of equipoise if you will. Hundreds of numerical studies will not provide this no matter how rigorous or detailed. Some of it may be of value, but as Doug Bowman says, “But we take all that with a grain of salt.” And remember… as Jared Spool said once, “any piece of data can be whipped to confess to anything.” It takes the judgement, inspiration, experience, and temperament of the designer(s) to resolve a cohesive blend of the rational and the imaginative into something that people will emotionally connect with and effectively use.

Marissa Mayer may unapologetically say “We let the math and the data govern how things look and feel,” but doing so only confesses the lack of humanity and soul in Google’s products, only a raw Terminator-esque ruthless efficiency embraced by triumphant engineering-centric glee. (Google Analytics–ironically–may be an exception, as is Google Chrome. IMHO per the recent bayCHI talk)

And finally, since when did a numerical quant study alone lead to some of the grand paradigm-shifting, breakthrough products of our time: the iPod, the Dyson, Tivo, Prius, twitter, youTube, blogs and of course the iPhone. Those dramatic jumps of insight more often involve multiple kinds of “data” mentioned above, and the recently recognized skills of abductive thinking (as Frog’s Jon Kolko described at Interaction’09)…with some curiosity and inventiveness and a good measure of perspiration, to hint at Thomas Edison’s old saying. Indeed, from the NYTimes article: “It is more from engaging with users, watching what they do, understanding their pain points, that you get big leaps in design.”

What is Systems Design?

An useful definition to be aware of for my own process and the overlap that software developers have found themselves in. The lack of clarity that has gone before and continues to go on in the understanding of the system design I feel is connected to the thoughts of Alan Cooper and the goal directed design process. (More thoughts on Goal directed design documented in the next post)

The following text is the pre-edited version of an interview of Hugh Dubberly by Dan Saffer. The interview was performed via email in February of 2006, and was later published in Designing for Interaction: Creating Smart Applications and Clever Devices.

What is system design?

Systems design is simply the design of systems. It implies a systematic and rigorous approach to design—an approach demanded by the scale and complexity of many systems problems.

Where did it come from?

Systems design first appeared shortly before World War II as engineers grappled with complex communications and control problems. They formalized their work in the new disciplines of information theory, operations research, and cybernetics. In the 1960s, members of the design methods movement (especially Horst Rittel and others at Ulm and Berkeley) transferred this knowledge to the design world.

(This can be used in the background in the literature review)

Systems design continues to flourish at schools interested in design planning and within the world of computer science. Among its most important legacies is a research field known as design rationale, which concerns systems for making and documenting design decisions.

What can designers learn from system design?

Today, ideas from design methods and systems design may be more relevant to designers than ever before—as more and more designers collaborate on designing software and complex information spaces. Frameworks suggested by systems design are especially useful in modeling interaction and conversation. They are also useful in modeling the design process itself.

This is significant to the IEAT process in order to ask and further test my own ideas against how system design communicates the information in the design process?

What is the most important thing to be aware of in system design

A system design approach asks

For this situation, what is the system?

• What is the environment?
• What goal does the system have in relation to its environment?
• What is the feedback loop by which the system corrects its actions?
• How does the system measure whether it has achieved its goal?
• Who defines the system, environment, goal, etc.—and monitors it?
• What resources does the system have for maintaining the relationship it desires?
• Are its resources sufficient to meet its purpose?

A initial comparison draw from this and applied to the IEAT process?

A systems approach to design asks: - to help provide questions/perspective for a developer ?

• For this situation, what is the information ecology?
• What is the ecology?
• this asks what goal does the system have in relation to its information ecology?
• What is the feedback loop by which the system corrects its actions?
• How does the system measure whether it has achieved its goal?
• Who defines the system, environment, goal, etc.—and monitors it?
• What resources does the system have for maintaining the relationship it desires?
• Are its resources sufficient to meet its purpose?

Is system design incompatible with the user centered design approach?

A systems approach to design is entirely compatible with a user-centered approach. Indeed, the core of both approaches is understanding user goals. A systems approach looks at users in relation to a context and in terms of their interaction with devices, with each other, and with themselves.

What is the relationship between system design and Cybernetics?

Cybernetics (the science of feedback) provides an approach to systems and a set of frameworks and tools. Among the most important ideas for designers:

• Definition of a system depends on point of view (subjectivity)
• We are responsible for our actions (ethical stance)
• All interaction is a form of conversation
• All conversation involves goals, understandings, and agreements

Are there times when a system design approach is inappropriate?

A systems approach to design is most appropriate for projects involving large systems or systems of systems. Such projects typically involve many people, from many disciplines, working together over an extended period of time. They need tools to cope with their project’s complexity: to define goals, facilitate communications, and manage processes. Solo designers working on small projects may find the same tools a bit cumbersome for their needs.

- A difference noted here is that system design deals with 'projects involving large
systems or systems of systems.' With the information ecology the purpose is to reduce down the complexities and have the focus upon the information movement within the ecology.

Will the IEAT process required similar identification to say when and when not it is
appropriate for the perspective of selling the idea to a software developer, interaction designer?

Visualising work postion

A really useful diagram to aid with the background literature review and positioning of the work

From the paper - An Evolving Map of Design Practice and Design Research
Liz Sanders

Abstract

Design research is in a state of flux. The design research landscape has been the focus of a tremendous amount of exploration and growth over the past five to 10 years. It is currently a jumble of approaches that, while competing as well as complementary, nonetheless share a common goal: to drive, inspire, and inform the design development process. Conflict and confusion within the design research space are evident in the turf battles between researchers and designers. Online communities reveal the philosophical differences between the applied psychologists and the applied anthropologists, as well as the general discontent at the borders between disciplines. At the same time, collaboration is evident in the sharing of ideas, tools, methods, and resources in online design research communities. We can also see an increase in the number and quality of global design research events and a growing emphasis on collaborative projects between industry and the universities, particularly in Europe…