Christian Behrens has done a very nice thesis on Information Visualisation and put the bulk of his findings into a pattern library website. If you like Tufte, better sit down. This site one made me come over all funny.
I added a del.icio.us link log to this blog... If you're not sure what del.icio.us is, it's a social bookmarking service. I post bookmarks that I find interesting, 'Tag' them with words that describe/categorize them for me (and hopefully other people), then other people can see the things that I've bookmarked (in case they find the same things interesting that I do). I can also find articles that others have 'Tagged' with things I find interesting. So, anyway, look left. There they are.
I'm writing more frequently these days. Not to this blog, unfortunately. But for other web-zines such as Boxes and Arrows, which have a larger audience. My new place of work also has me writing more. Consultants write reports, summaries of studies, technical breifings, etc.
My father is an author. He's written five books, all non-fiction. My interest in writing, and style to some extent, is inspired by him.
On reading my articles, Dad gave me George Orwell's 5 Rules for Effective Writing. Clearly, he thinks I have yet to reach my potential and he's probably right. As much as this blog is a place for me to express and develop my thoughts, its a link log for me and others. This article is really valuable for people hacking away at writing because it mandates practices that are easy to understand, yet hard to do.
Excerpt: Language is the primary conductor between your brain and the minds of your audience. Ineffective language weakens and distorts ideas.
If you want to be understood, if you want your ideas to spread, using effective language must be your top priority.In the modern world of business and politics this is hardly ever the case. In many instances, imprecise language is used intentionally to avoid taking a position and offending various demographics.
The latest project I worked on used Microsoft's Expression suite to deliver a working prototype of a Windows application in Windows Prenentation Foundation (WPF). Expression is actually four different programs: Design; Blend; Web and Media. Clearly aimed at taking some of Adobe's market share they enjoy with Flash, Dreamweaver, etc, Expression can deliver Web sites, applications, "Silverlight" (can be thought of as a Flash-like plugin that plays Silverlight files in a Web browser), rich apps and also Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF) apps (Lots of MS Vista was built using WPF I hear). XAML is the main code format that Expression produces. XAML is a language that describes the interface layer, and is similar to Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) in its appeal (rendering of interface objects as vectors based on code rather than as pixels which don't scale well).
Expression facilitates workflow between disciplines in the development team as it separates the presentation layer from code quite well. Both can be generated simultaneously and there's no longer a need for a developer to translate a designer's vision with lines of code - invariably a vulnerable communication process. Well, that's the promise anyway... but yes, there's a big 'but' here.
Leaving aside the immaturity of the application suite, while relateively slick for a Microsoft product it has got some nasty usability issues. In terms of flow, it runs a distant second to Adobe's products, which have been refined over the last decade and a half or so. Indeed, getting around some basic functions like relabeling layer elements seems like a chore by comparison. Unfortunately, the fact that an interface has been designed over the top of an underlying interaction architecture defined by programmers is fairly typical of the way Microsoft builds software. Credit to the design team who did a reasonably good job at pushing boundaries where they could and put some very pretty lipstick on this little piggy. Not all the applications in the suite are difficult; the 'Design' tool isn't too bad. It's not as powerful as Adobe Illustrator, but pretty similar to it for the most part. But where Microsoft had to invent something that didn't have a good example to follow (e.g. the 'Blend' tool), the resulting software is cumbersome for we UI designers to use.
The 'Design' and 'Blend' tools share some of the same functions, but ask the user to learn slightly different interface paradigms to do them. This contributes to the feeling of "anti-flow" aka 'frustration' that washes over you when trying to do things that could be done simply with Adobe products.
'Blend' when working in WPF is trying to create a very different underlying structure to interface objects than designers are used to thinking about. Grids, Stack Panels, Frames and other 'Containers' are a foreign model when you are used to just placing bunch of elements onto a page so they look right. This takes some getting your head around to say the least. Supporting documentation on when to use what 'Container' and why some 'Containers' are better suited to certain applications is not comprehensive. Add this learning curve to usability issues and frustration turns to exasperation rather quickly. Some may retreat to the familiar, comparitively friendly environment of Adobe Illustrator, exporting XAML from it using a plugin (which doesn't do the cleanest translation job either) and giving that to the programmer to construct the 'Container model'. That kind of defeats the point of Microsoft Expression if we're trying to get designers to put their edits directly into code via 'Blend'.
Perhaps its unfair to compare a product that's just recently come to market with one that's been honed over time and does something fundametally different. But with that said, there are some things that seem patently broken about 'Blend' (known bugs aside).
In my experience, developers hate using WYSIWYG tools because they don't do a very good job at interpreting intentions and create overweight and messy code as a result. In essence, that's what 'Blend' is - a WYSIWYG code editor. Typically, your programmer won't want to use 'Blend' to create the complex, object-oriented control structure inherent with software of any magnitude. They'll most likely want to use Microsoft's Visual Studio instead because it's what they're used to and frankly is does a better job of helping them to code than 'Blend' does. In this case, you will run into terminal problems trying to use 'Blend' to edit design artifacts nested in controls (usually also fed content by a data source). This is of course, unless your developer is aware that you need to use 'Blend' to edit your design elements and structures their code accordingly. How you do that, I don't actually know. But I believe it can be done. If I find a link to something that outlines best practice for this, I'll post it to this blog.
In summary, I've used blend for about 4 months now. Not day-in, day-out, but for weeks at a stretch at least. I still dread opening it and battling through doing simple things. Toward the end of the project I've just finished, we were back to filing design bugs for developers to fix (or not) because we couldn't get at design elements because the project had not been architected 'just so'. So why did we use Expression? Is it just immature? Or is it destined to be difficult for designers to use? Only time will tell.
It's been so long since a portfolio site left me totally blown away and inspired. Remon Tijssen's site Fluid makes for great perusing and playing (because the interaction is lovely too). Take a look to kill some time or to be reminded of how design ought to look. This guy has exceptional range and flawless execution. Wow!
After much writing and re-writing, the first part of an article I wrote called "Building the UX Dreamteam" is now up on Boxes and Arrows. Boy, who would've thought that putting together your thoughts could be so hard? I'm very happy that I had good editors, in particular, Chris Palle who really directed me how to cut this article into shape - Thanks mate.
"Finding the right person to compliment your User Experience team is part art and part luck. Though good interviewing can limit the risk of a bad hire, you need to carefully analyze your current organizational context, before you can know what you need. Herein lies the art. Since you can’t truly know a candidate from an interview, you gamble that their personality and skills are what they seem. Aimed at managers and those involved in the hiring decision process, this article looks at the facets of UX staff and offers ways to identify the skills and influence that will tune your team to deliver winning results."
The Slides, Handouts and Podcast of my talk at Adaptive Path's UX Week 2007 are here for your viewing and listening pleasure.
If you'd like to join the myfamily site set up to discuss this topic, download the handout and see the last page for a link.
"Flow diagrams are a key component of an interaction design specification. Jesse James Garrett’s Visual Vocabulary uses a set of simple shapes to diagram user flow and illustrate basic relationships between webpages. However, using Visual Vocabulary to describe more sophisticated behaviors of “rich” interfaces — enabled by technologies such as AJAX, Flash and Ruby on Rails — can sometimes prove challenging. But with some additions and creative modifications, Garrett’s language can actually be used to effectively communicate the design of a rich or conditional UI.
In this session, you will:
Federated Identity is a topic I've not thought about for about 3 years. In that time, we've seen the rise of open standards SAML and OpenID and the decline in corporate solutions such as Microsoft's Passport (now known as Windows Live ID) and the Liberty Alliance. In particular, a faceted ID system which can authenticate and represent me to services with my appropriately matched dataset (I have many 'sets' of data – some are appropriate for friends, but not for work, etc) was only an idea back then and until recently, the topic has been relatively quiet. With the awakening to the Social Web, the inevitable question "Why do I have to manage so many versions of myself?" that has been asked by academics like Danah Boyd and Thomas Vander Wal and addressed – if not completely – by technology solutions, such as Sxipper and Demoxi. Fundamentally, however, the problems being solved primarily concern authentication and online form filling, not the actual management of my data held by various companies and organizations online.
Some others are thinking on mapping my relationships (which isn't a new concept – FOAF has been around for years), but none are telling the story of why this is a good idea. Sure, auto form-filling is cool, it helps me get things done quicker. Mapping my relationships is a neat idea, perhaps it can help me fill my profiles on Facebook or LinkedIn quicker... but something is missing.
Five or so years on from when the Digital Identity field rose to prominence, the industry is still coming up with answers without really knowing what the problem is. What's missing is a story – a clearly defined problem to which tech solutions can be applied.
My digital identity consists of all things me. It's not just my username and password, or the fields I fill in registration forms, or just my friends and associates. It's all these things and more. It's the photos I use to represent myself. It's the things I say in online forums on on my blog and the medicines I am prescribed by my doctor. Every piece of content and metadata about me forms my digital identity.
I believe collectively we're searching for a repository for the many facets of my digital ID, constructed with an open standard. A database and application that lives on my own server with an API that allows organizations and companies to access the sets of information about me that I explicitly allow. This information doesn't get stored by these organizations or companies, because its mine. They can access it whenever they need it, but I manage it and can cut them off whenever I choose. I want my identity under my control and not in the hands of corporations and organizations who may or may not be obliged to do the right thing with it.
My ID server should be as ubiquitous as email - an inalienable right to possess. I can think of nobody else but the open source community to provide this framework, since my personal data is not for a corporation to charge me for the right to use. I wish for that community to use this idea. By putting it out there, I hope it lights a bulb in some clever open source developers head.
Adaptive Path are having their UX Week in Washington DC August 13-16, 2007. It promises to be an interesting set of talks and panels, with a good focus on designing in Agile environments, tools for doing so and naturally plenty of Web 2.0 topics too.
It's testament to the industry's health that the user experience discipline has conferences dedicated to it. The Adaptive Path conferences tend to be more practical than others, which is extraordinarily valuable for maturing the practice. To build an identifiable discipline (such as 'programming' for example) the methods we use must be common. It's vital that all UX folk are conversant in tried and true tools, as much for their own benefit, as for those who are trying to identify what UX work looks like.
Conferences like this also provide an opportunity to showcase new thinking in established areas, or new technologies and methodologies. For my part, I'll be presenting modifications to Jesse James Garrett's Visual Vocabulary – using them to diagram the flow of rich internet applications. Check it out at the conference website. I'll also be sitting on Dan Brown's panel to discuss how design methods and documents are changing with the Web 2.0 era - it promises to be a lively discussion!
