I recently purchased a desktop PC and opted for Windows 7 – and after only 2 system crashes, 2 reinstalls, and a BIOS change to the boot order so the computer wouldn’t try to boot from the USB wireless adapter – I have been merrily chugging along on my new Windows 7 adventure.

And apparently Windows wants to make sure that I don’t ever make any kind of mistake on my adventure, EVER. On this adventure they will monitor every single thing I do, and give me constant feedback about every tiny change that happens to the system while I use the computer. I couldn’t believe what I was seeing the first time I unplugged my earphones:

Really, Windows 7? Thanks for informing me of that! It is nice to have some reassurance that the headphones were indeed removed – my inferior human brain gets confused sometimes when I grasp the headphone jack with my imperfect fingers and remove the jack from the machine. It is nice to know that my eyes and my brain and my hands aren’t playing tricks on me.

And how nice! You will even give me another message informing me when I plug the headphones back in! How did I get by for the past 25 years, just “winging it” by plugging headphones into things solely by feel? Never again will I wonder what those clicks that I felt were when I plugged the jack in, or why I could hear music playing through the headphones shortly afterwards. Windows 7 – unraveling the universe’s biggest mysteries just for me!

And thanks for sharing your digital infallibility with me by distracting me from what I was doing – It really ensures that I never forget that I am using Windows 7 when you remind me that you are there every 5 minutes. I have been meaning to break that pesky workflow habit that I like to get into.

But in case a few minutes go by and you start to feel like I am not paying enough attention to you, I have a few suggestions for alerts you could throw into the rotation.

For those times when I lose control of my motor function in my right hand and simultaneously blink at the exact moment my pointer finger depresses the button without my knowledge, and the temperature is chilly enough that my hands are semi-numb and I can’t feel the click of the mouse button:

Sometimes when I push that little button on my monitor I am not sure if it worked. This one will help me remove any doubt that it was indeed turned on:

And of course a one-size fits all solution:

Seriously – just because you CAN detect something doesn’t mean it needs to be shown to users. This reminds me of a couple of Heidegger’s power phrases: “ready-to-hand” and “present-to-hand”. In simple terms for this context ready-to-hand means I can use the tool without thinking about it. Like writing with a pencil – I am focused on the act of writing. Present-to-hand means I am focused on the tool itself, like if the pencil breaks it is no longer ready-to-hand because I am focusing on it.

I am going to make a very bold statement here – I am pretty sure the point of software is to use it. But in order to use software it needs to become ready-to-hand so I can focus on my task and not the tool I am using to accomplish it. I can’t use Windows 7 to accomplish tasks if it is constantly moving from ready-to-hand to present-to-hand by showing me alerts.

But in true tech-centered design fashion, I can turn the alerts off in a settings screen – IF i am able to snipe the little wrench icon in the few seconds that the message is up. Then I am gifted with this wondrous screen:

So just because I want to unplug and plug in my headphones, or insert USB drives, or do any other number of basic interactions with my computer – I have to “select which icons and notifications appear in the task bar.” (Quite ironic that it is called a “task” bar when the default behavior of it is what prevents me from completing tasks.)

Why is the responsibility upon the user to manage all that stuff? Why would it be so hard to prioritize the necessary notifications for users to see into a list of about 30 key alerts, chop off the 28 that were added by technocrats, and then by default only show the 2 remaning CRITICAL messages:

Windows 7 is going to crash again. You should probably back up your hard drive.

Windows 7 just became self-aware and is set to re-enact the events of Terminator 3.

If it isn’t one of those two messages – 99% of users won’t ever need to see it.

But I guess I should wrap this up soon, since I have a long night ahead of me of changing settings to turn notifications off. But I think I might leave this one on:

“If you really don’t want to share….DONT PUT IT ON THE NET!”

I am not a technological determinist, but we are crazy if we don’t realize that there is a lot of pressure to put things on the Internet. And we can’t just blame people for being uninformed. People do it because they don’t feel like they have much of a choice due to the impending social pressures of being “on Facebook.” Of course they do have a choice, just like how we have a choice not to fill out every single field when we create one of our hundreds of profiles in the digital sphere. But there are a lot of people who happily fill out every single field, unknowingly giving away lots of information that they don’t have to, because that is what the interface is telling them that it wants. Of course we should try to inform ourselves about these things, but we can’t really expect every person to become “Facebook literate.”

Think back to filling out doctor’s forms when they used to be on paper. Their officialness and connection to our personal health told us that we should fill out every box and not skip anything. In remediating the fill-in-the-blank form onto the computer screen, many people still feel the same way when they are presented with things to fill out on profiles. I can’t tell you how many people I have seen fill out every field when they created a profile for Skype, MySpace, Facebook, etc. Sometimes they go back and eliminate things from the profile, paring it down because they wished they hadn’t included some of that information, but not everyone does this and sometimes it is too late anyway.

We should stop blaming people for being “stupid enough to put things on the Internet that they don’t want known” and acknowledge the role that the design of the interaction itself plays in this. We have finally gotten away from interactions that force people to provide information by at least allowing people to opt out (even if this is still poorly done with an asterisk or a buried drop-down menu somewhere). However, interactions as simple as filling out fields in profiles or engaging with a variety of interactions on Facebook are still telling people that they should provide the information. As designers it is our responsibility to critique and question this status quo – and stop assuming that filling that database with as much discreet information as possible is in some way adding value to how people experience technology.

Ultimately, the profile fill-in-the-blanks is just one example out of many where we blame users for making bad decisions, when the design itself was telling them that it was ok to do so. It is like putting an “OPEN” sign on a locked door, and then blaming the person after they bumped into it when it didn’t open.

It has taken me a long time to figure out what I think about Facebook, and I have read enough articles to make me yearn for a nice 20-page End User License Agreement. In this post I will respond to the Schrage article from my perspective as a human-centered designer, in the hopes of shining a light on why Facebook never seems to get it right.

For many people, Facebook represents the way they define their lives, and I mean that to be as profound as it sounds. Because of this, Facebook should seek to cultivate a better understanding of society and culture – Facebook as a social space in 2010 is a far cry from its origins in 2003′s Facemash. I may be wrong, but it seems that Facebook understands people and culture with all the nuance of a 19 year-old Mark Zuckerberg illegally accessing student information and photos in order to evaluate students based on if they were “good-looking.”

I don’t mean to suggest that Mark or Facebook haven’t matured since then, but I do think that Schrage’s response conveys a Facebook that doesn’t acknowledge its social and civic responsibility. It is absolutely true that Facebook has created a social space that adds a lot of value to people lives, but it is clear that the service and company still have a lot of growing up to do. One might make the case that Facebook has no responsibility to “do the right thing,” however that is not the message that Schrage delivered. Not to mention that a non-attempt to do the “right thing” is essentially a conscious choice to do the wrong thing.

I think the first step is to stop assuming so many things about people based on “user data” and “user activity.” It is good that they care about their users, but they seem to only see them as “users of Facebook” instead of individual people. No amount of digital data in the world will tell you why someone “liked” something, it will only tell you that they clicked a button. No amount of options, drop-down menus, or “Facebook Site Governance Pages” will provide the transparency and user-centeredness that Schrage claims to have.

Here are a few suggestions that I think would work, although this is hardly an all-encompassing solution. They should 1) bring in some designers who are trained in real empathic research methods (not just developers and graphic designers), 2) allow them to carry out qualitative and quantitative research about users, culture, and society, and 3) actually incorporate the findings about what people as a culture (not just users) care about into a long-term plan to make Facebook a social space that enhances our lives instead of complicating them.

Also, here is the poster for my final design:

WoW Capture: HCI/d Master's Capstone

“If you consider Human Computer Interaction Design to be “designing the relationship between humans and technology, then to do it well you need nothing less than an understanding of the depths and expanses of the human condition, and the ability to work in situations of co-creation. To understand the human condition you need to understand experience, language, culture, and emotion. To understand co-creation you have to understand how to enable, educate, and empower others to design.”

“When attempting to teach someone something new, it is better to say “We aren’t here to change you, but to challenge you.”

“The principles of design thinking are the keys to organizations solving problems that arise from disruptions.”

Interaction Design is about:

• thinking critically
• making something from nothing
• getting stakeholders to evaluate their own risks and goals
• focusing on people, understanding them while you navigate the process and learn how to listen
• knowing your process, making it transparent, and creating a situation in which everyone takes part
• designing for the user to promote inward-facing dialog in the organization

Here are 3 different levels of what human-centered design could mean, each of which is important:

• looking to the user for inspiration of design instead of the technology
• looking to the user for the evaluation of good design, usability, and “rightness”
• cultural theory and cultural critique methods to “humanize” the process

“HCI/d relies on understanding people. You can’t design or do anything of value unless you understand people first. Get the right design before you get the design right.”

That was actually quite enlightening for me to put all that here. I think I actually synthesized a bit for myself. And I got some Twitter fodder.

“Some people read books, some write or share their experience or thoughts on blogs or by simply reading some famous author’s blogs to upgrade their knowledge. Share your most preferred blogs or books to improve and update latest trends on User experience.”

This is a common question to find on LinkedIn or on forums like IXDA. However, I typically find that these are the wrong kind of questions to ask, especially since the question is concerned with “the latest trends.” Also, responders almost always view user experience or interaction design as web design, software usability, or graphic design (a dilemma that isn’t likely to go away anytime soon). Indeed it does include these things, but I feel to do it well one must take a broader perspective of what it means to design technology. In any case, I thought my response to this question was decent, so I decided to re-work it here.

I am about to graduate with a master’s degree in HCI/d from Indiana University, and from what I have learned during my education, work, and research is that the key is to first define what you mean by “experience” and “design.” Admittedly this is a bit biased by my education, but without evaluating how you are defining these two words, it is easy to be at the whim of whatever flavor of design that IXDA or boxesandarrows is tossing around at the moment. There is a lot to read or listen to with regards to both of these concepts, and the definitions of the two could fit on a spectrum with “build a GUI interface in Photoshop” on one end, and “understand the fundamental components of what it means to be a human being” on the other.

For me, I view experience as holistic, all encompassing of culture, language, and people. Design I view both something fundamental to being human, as well as a way of approaching complex problems. It is something that when understood can be a powerful tool for creating meaningful works.

To be a good interaction designer, you need to be able to navigate multiple perspectives, and walk the philosophical line between natural science and social science. And it isn’t easy. If I have to point out some people to read, then Jon Kolko’s Thoughts on Interaction Design, Bill Buxton, and Elizabeth Churchill are a few good reads for a rounded intro to interaction design. Erik Stolterman and Elliot Eisner are perhaps my favorites for design in general. For understanding experience, I recommend Heideggar, Gadamer, and McCarthy & Wright.

But ultimately, it isn’t the reading or the fancy philosophy talk that leads to understanding. Reading can help us to fine-tune our perspectives and the lenses that we see through. It is up to us to put our knowledge to practical use, because only in doing do we truly start to understand.

So how does someone improve or update their knowledge on user experience design? Read anything that blows your hair back, but don’t think that you can passively take it in and “gain” the knowledge you need. Start with yourself. Learn to think beyond yourself, don’t be at the whim of trends, and be humble. Then get out there, practice designing, and be reflective about it.

It also seems to me that speaking of design as a shaper of behavior or rhetoric puts the emphasis on the wrong place for most practical industrial or interaction design work. I guess I align more with Christopher Alexander’s approach in Notes on the Synthesis of Form and A Timeless Way of Building–that what we design should fit, not so much change or shape, the way people already behave or want to behave, and it should only be rhetorical if put to ends that align with the good of those being designed for.

Thank you J. Ambrose Little.  People come first.  Our values as designers will undoubtedly manifest themselves in our work, but we design things, not behavior.  We can only design for behavior.  Now I gotta go read Jon’s book.

In making my thoughts and assumptions explicit, I have very strong opinions about how World of Warcraft favors certain playstyles over others.  I feel that the design and “loudest” player groups have created a game culture that favors ambition, aggressiveness, and a focus on certain achievements over others.  (Warning: The following sentence might be highly subjective or half-baked).  High level or “epic/elite” activities, raiding, or player vs. player are seen as “better” than any-level activities like exploration, pet collection, or crafting.  While these any-level activities are not seen as unimportant, they don’t have near the prestige of the other activities, and are often treated as a means to an end.

After my first attempt at doing a semiotic reading of the FigurePrints service, I have a vague sense of a thesis.  This is something along the lines of: The FigurePrints interaction favors dominant, aggressive, and high-level players over players that are low-level or less concerned with aggressive or competitive play.

I begin with a statement about what the figure itself represents.  It is a text that represents the player’s time investment, their attachment to the character and the character’s place in the history of the game lore, the character’s (and player’s) growth over time, the character (and player’s) growth in a larger social context of friends and other players in the game, and on and on.  It is a text of rich and personal meaning, and the choices that FigurePrints provides limit players to only certain kinds of meaning.  I will illustrate this with a syntagmatic and paradigmatic analysis of the choices provided to players in the creation of the figure.

Syntagmatically-speaking, the creation of the FigurePrints statue consists of choosing from a Pose, a Base, and a set of Armor.

I think I need to explore the importance of limiting players to these 3 choices, but as of yet I haven’t analyzed it that much.  However, I currently can adequately speak about what each of these paradigms represent and what choices are given.

Pose as a representation of body language

Players can choose from 44 different poses, 33 of which involve the use of a weapon and depict the character in battle.  This leaves 11 poses that could reflect the character out of battle.  Of these 11 poses, 5 are gestures that depict behavior that is aggressive or negative in the culture of World of Warcraft.  There are the character poses of yell, chicken (taunt), rude (making an obscene gesture), train (a gesture that represents a despised activity in which a player or players, on purpose or on accident, lead a large group of monsters to another player resulting in chaos, game lag, and death), and beg (perhaps an even more despised behavior than a monster train).

The remaining 6 poses are stand, walk, wave, kiss, kneel, and sit.  Out of 44 possible representations of body language, this seems to be a very limited range of choices for creating a character figure that is NOT fighting or calling attention to the negative cultural aspects of the game.  Granted, the game is called World of WARcraft, not the World of Politeness and Compromise.  However, there is much more to a player’s character and gameplay than fighting.  Players engage in arguably more social/helpful scenarios than they do in fighting, and they collect plants, mine for metals, go fishing, craft items, and engage with storylines.  But there are no poses for any of these.

Base as a representation of [something]. < I don’t know what to put here yet.  It is a symbol of elevated status, of standing on top of something, of being built upon something.  I don’t know.  Anyway:

There are 4 choices of statue bases:

Marbled Floor: The “plainest” of all the bases, but represents a material of luxury and importance.

Horned Stand: Horns are aggressive, bestial, and associated with violence

Gold Mound: wealth, greed, achievement

Onyxia Base: This one is interesting in that it cost an extra $10, perhaps due to printing constraints.  However, more cost is usually associated with a “premium” or “superior” product, which in this case is the base that represents a large, epic battle against a dragon.  This particular battle is a well-known (relatively-speaking) raid in World of Warcraft, and is sort of a rite of passage for players that begin raiding.  Here the “premium” product is reserved for players concerned with raiding.

What is missing from this assortment of bases is the choice to have your character standing in a meadow, or at a crafting station, or near a fishing hole, all of which are places that exist in the game and can have very special meanings for players.

Armor as a representation of fashion and achievement

Choices of armor are limited to the armor you have actually collected in the game.  In the analysis I did, a level 80 character that has done many raids and player vs. player fights has 10 armor options as opposed to a level 20 character who has 3.  Additionally, 2 of these options are for Christmas outfits that every player has access to.  If you remove those options the armor choices are 8 to 1 in favor of the player that engages with game activities that reward players with special armor.

As I mentioned before, there are an incredible amount of activities that players can engage with.  Players can follow the storyline, harvest materials, craft items, play the stock-market on the auction house, explore the game world, collect pets, teach other players how to play, help out other players with difficult situations, make new friends, and on and on.  However, these activities in themselves are not rewarded with special sets of armor.  Special sets of armor are reserved for players that engage with high-level game content, and are successful in killing “epic” monsters, or defeating other players in tournaments.

Since FigurePrints only allows players to “dress” their character in the armor they have acquired in the game, this places a much higher value on high-level players concerned with raids and player vs. player activities.  This is most evident in the words used in the instructions:

These are the instructions shown to all players, regardless of if they have 8 sets of high-level armor to choose from or 1 low-level set of armor.

Any player without high-level armor could be described as either not interested in those aspects of the game that provide the armor, or as not “advanced” enough to have acquired it.  By not providing this player with as many options to “dress” the character, the player is limited in the ways he or she can create a meaningful representation of his or her character.

FigurePrints situated amongst other texts

And then I can also talk about FigurePrints as a creative activity concerned with creating an artifact that represents the player’s character.  In seeing FigurePrints as this, I can compare it to many other artifacts that are created to represent the character:  costumes, drawings, forum signatures, fan fiction, and the WoW Armory just to name a few.  In exploring these artifacts, I have seen an interesting occurrence: artifacts that are created from scratch by players have very different qualities than artifacts that are generated using information from the game.

Some future design implications?

Namely, game-generated artifacts seem to focus on achievements, statistics, armor, and items.  Player-generated artifacts seem to focus on personal stories and social elements.  Some of this is discussed by Silvia Lindtner, Bonnie Nardi, and Fernanda Viégas.  This will be more important in the future as representations based on digital data become a source for decision-making.  If social spaces like World of Warcraft use their digital data to reduce the rich experience down to statistics and equipment, what implications does that have for the ways in which we value others and ourselves?
EDIT: January 4, 2010.  Since first posting this, I have developed these thoughts more and have written several drafts of this paper.  It is currently a work in progress.

“Hmmm…potatoes.  They cut them here to make the fries.  I don’t see any way they could cut them by hand.  They must have a machine.  But I don’t see any machine that could cut them into fries.  Well, there is a machine there on the counter.  No, that is a slicer for sandwich meat.  Ok, then where is the potato french fry cutter?  Well, I don’t know what a potato french fry cutter looks like.  But I am a designer, so what do I think it should look like?  What kinds of design decisions go into making that machine?  Do they use human-centered design methods when making that machine?  Are the designers of that machine more concerned with human factors rather than experience design?  Do they try to design for efficiency, or do they try to make the use of the machine satisfying, like when Bill Buxton talks about the experience of using his juicer?  What materials would they use for that machine?  Would it be something obvious, like steel, or would they use something different?  How would the potatoes come out?  Would it be like a cannon, or would they sort of just squeeze out slowly like those old Play-doh machines that you could make fries or noodles out of?”

Then my mind snapped out of it and I explained to Matt why I had that weird look on my face for the previous few moments.  We both laughed because this happens all the time now that I have been in a design-oriented Master’s program for over a year.  It can be maddening at times, but is still funny to think about.

It is kind of like when you recover from a sinus infection or a cold.  After a week or so of not being able to hear, smell, and taste properly, once it is over the world seems richer and your senses are more acute.  Now that I am thinking like a designer, my brain is now more acute and sensitized to the artifacts in the world around me.  It kind of feels like a superpower.

And by the way, those fries are delicious.  Only slightly less delicious than the fries at Five Guys.