Verisimilitude and Decision-Making

Last week IVX presented “Speed Mazer IVX” at the Waikato University Open Day 2016. The creation of Speed Mazer IVX was a good time to reflect on how verisimilitude forms perhaps the key criteria for our production decisions.

Verisimilitude is the appearance of being true or real. Verisimilitude is the seduction that teases the audience willingly into the world of the work. Things present or things-expected-but-missing will affect verisimilitude. Verisimilitude is the macro-clothing in which the work dresses. It is an overall sensory experience that emerges from the aesthetics of individual elements.

There are always pragmatic considerations when creating installation works. No concept proceeds cleanly from plan to execution intact. In fact, the sign of a great concept is that there are more ideas for how to improve the work then there are available resources to do them all. Why is that?

The obvious answer is that not all ideas are good ideas so having more ideas means that creators do not become wedded to bad ideas just because they are the only ideas. Comparing ideas against each other forces greater articulation of the desired verisimilitude.

Speed Mazer IVX is a player vs. player maze racer controlled by guitar hero instruments. The simplicity of the concept meant quick buy-in by the audience, a sense of competition and an element of mastery. Having randomly generated mazes meant that players could not develop muscle memory to complete the task.

Initially, we had cosmos inspired backgrounds. IVX loves cosmos pictures – indeed, our last year’s Open Day installation was “Write Your Name Among the Starts”. However, during testing, it was apparent that the cosmos background images distracted from the competitive feeling of racing through a maze. We went with black backgrounds to give an 8-bit arcade feel.

We tried to add sound – which always goes a long way to elevating verisimilitude. However, there were problems with the sound library that were going to take considerable time to resolve. We instead elected to put the time into visual aspects.

The maze is bumped when a player hits a wall. The bump reaction signals to the player that they have hit a wall. The maze feels more real because bumps behave with believable physics. The bump reactions happen in 3D, but the 3D renderer limited what we could do with the walls (without more work). The positive verisimilitude effect of the bumps in 3D was greater than the verisimilitude of nicer looking walls, so we kept the bump effects.

Particles are spat out opposite to the direction of player movement. Some of particles are added to the opposing player’s maze, and each player spits their colour. When players are concentrating on their own maze then still get feedback that the other player is nearby. Particles also help build up a visual intensity proportional to the speed at which the player moves through the maze. Getting the right feel to the particle fields were the subject of much experimentation.

Initially, we wanted to have the player’s represented by a shape that would change direction as the player traversed the maze. While this might have been a great idea, it was judged as having a lesser effect on the verisimilitude so was not attempted as the deadline approached. Other ideas; random maze wall art, generative backgrounds, power-ups, a cheat mode, and more visual prompts similarly prioritised.

The functional aspects - making a heads-up maze racer than one side could win - did not take long to program. However, the bulk (probably 75% or more) of the coding time went into making tuning the verisimilitude to create the right experience for the audience.

Reflecting on our decision-making process during the creation of Speed Mazer IVX made me realise the central role of verisimilitude is to our work. We dropped ideas that broke the verisimilitude and prioritised our features against our limited resources (time) according to verisimilitude. I look forward to advancing this thinking more in future IVX work.

Design of a Funeral Programme

I make this post to outline the thinking process that I put into the design of my grandfather’s funeral program. Consider it something like the director’s comments that come with a movie: only interesting for those interested in how things are made. Apart from the obvious informational purpose of the funeral programme there were two further purposes; to connote something about my grandfather and to potentially last as a family history document. I made design decisions with this in mind.

The front cover and it’s inside front contain family history information. The inside back and back cover contain funeral service information. The programme can be cut down the middle if only one half is desired. The programme can be folded inside out to protect the photograph during transit.
Name and date information placed to allow framing in an A5 frame or to trim the name and frame closer to the photograph Three different photo choices attempt to provide a prompt for conversation at the service and act like a collectible series.

Family history information fits within the area of the photograph so that can be kept if the photograph is put into an album. This was more important than rigidly maintaining typographic rhythm with the opposite leaf.

Large typography so that it is comfortable to read at the funeral service and will better stand up to aging. Additional line-space added to group sections of the service, lighten the feel of the page and provide visual landmarks when glancing for information.

Consistent typographic hierarchy and a three column grid unifies the pages.

Production Notes

Budget and time considerations meant a larger run of about 80 programs on 120gsm glossy satin stock and a limited run of fancier programmes intended for close family.

Photographs are on archive paper, fixed with acid free photography squares. Bockingford paper is also acid free. It was a bit more expensive but should last for a few decades.

While printers have large catalogues of paper stock, most of it must be ordered in. The timeline for a funeral meant I could not wait. Bockingford felt like granddad; classy, solid, even if a bit rough. Garamond seemed to be a fitting typeface for the same reasons.

The guy at printing.com in Frankton was incredibly helpful. Get to know your printer and talk to them early about your job. Printing.com did the 120gsm satin gloss run of about 80 sheets.

Bockingford Watercolour came in artist pads – I separated the leaves, removed the adhesive and found somebody who would feed them through their machines. Thanks Warehouse Stationery!

I was concerned about how much toner drop out there’d be on the Bockingford. That meant an early test print of fancy tiny typefaces with stokes widths from the hairline to the bold. Less toner drop than I expected – just a very slight tasteful amount.

I’m don’t normally work much in print so I’m a bit unfamiliar with InDesign. I spent most of my design time trying to remember how to use the thing! I almost gave up to use something more familiar (Word *cough*) but InDesign’s beautiful text rendering made me perservere. Well worth it. Also, I’m not ashamed to admit I was saved by YouTube tutorials more than once.

Design Demons: The Demons at War

I received the following message from a reader:

I am the creative type. It is easy for me to focus on stuff but I find it hard to make myself disciplined. I am strict about the arts I produce though, I hate flaws and I am very detailed. But I tend to give up and tense up easily if I meet an obstacle. I start blaming myself and getting so stressed I get no work done. Is it still possible for me to pursue design? I am not a very productive person but I have concentration and passion for art. I just don't have the discipline and hard work to stick through it.

I think that the commenter can do well in design for this overriding reason: They are reflecting upon themselves and their projects. However, for now, they are probably over criticising.

The Design Demons are a good way to examine this situation. The Critic and Creative demons are fighting while the Pragmatic demon is ignored. This leads to feeling depressed and frustrated with projects.

In detail: The Creative demon has an amazing idea which the designer works on for a while but the Critic keeps saying that the work is not good enough yet. The project runs into rather normal problems and that further infuriates the Critic: “this isn’t good enough! Why can’t you do this?” The Creative demon becomes frustrated at the lack of exciting progress and so begins to interrupt with new ideas. Both the Creative and Critic are so noisy that neither pays attention to the Pragmatist demon. Eventually the project is abandoned out of frustration and the excitement of the new.

Here is a technique to strengthen the Pragmatist demon while taming the Creative and Critic demons.

1. Maintain a list of potential projects. Record new ideas but do not act on them immediately.
2. Set a deadline ahead of time: e.g. Today I have 3 hours to finish a project.
3. Choose a goal OUTPUT from the list of potential projects.
4. Execute.
5. Post OUTPUT online.
6. Repeat as necessary.

The focus of this exercise is on quantity of outputs with quality constrained by time. The deadline must be set before the project is decided and the deadline should be close. What tangible output can be completed before the deadline? The deadline limits the size of the idea but the designer can attempt a part of a larger idea provided that part is posted online by the deadline. The Pragmatic demon will learn to estimate project size better with practice.

The Creative demon may interrupt with new ideas so take two minutes to record the idea. Maybe the idea will be chosen later and maybe it will not. If the Creative demon stays too noisy then consider having a "No New Projects" week, or month. New projects can be recorded anytime but only projects listed at the start of the time period can be attempted. The Creative demon must learn when to be quiet.

The deadline will encourage the Pragmatic demon to challenge Critic demon: “We only have 30 minutes left, just how important is fixing this flaw?” The Pragmatist can work with the other demons to solve project problems: the Creative loves coming up with novel solutions while the Critic can iterate solutions quickly.

This article advises how the strong critical and creative designer can become a bit more pragmatic. More broadly, this article gives an example of how dysfunctional relationships between the Design demons are a useful model for examining designer psychology.

Design as Simple Complexity

In 1963 Buckminster Fuller introduced the Design Science movement. The movement was largely abandoned within a decade because science (as we know it) does not explain design well. Horst Rittel's explanation of "wicked problems" and the methods approaches of Bruce Archer are more useful explanations with better outcomes.

Our current scientific method (called hypothetico-deductivism) makes predictions and then tests those predictions. If a prediction is not disproved enough times then eventually it becomes theory. The problem is all those experiments take time and control over the variables.

The more time taken to research increases the likelihood of feedback where effects loop back and cause changes to the thing being studied. In an area like design, feedback loops can be extremely quick; an Internet Meme can rise and fall in a matter of days. Science cannot always move fast enough and even if it does the conclusions reached might no longer be applicable as the feedback loops increase. Once research is published then it too feeds back into the system - stimulating differentiating rebellions and copy-cat self-fulfilling prophecies.

Science can explain things like Universal Aesthetics because the feedback loops are less problematic. But there are only a few such areas of design with this property. Science can be like trying to explain boxing by examining the posts and ropes because they are not as complex as understanding events inside the ring.

Science typically assumes that a problem can be broken into small parts which can be solved individually (reductionism) and the conclusions reassembled. This works if the relationships between the parts is simple and well understood - the variables can therefore be easily controlled. But relationships between design elements is complex so that controlling variables too greatly results in studies with narrow conclusions.

What are narrow conclusions? Research seeks the simplest theory that explains the most. Narrow conclusions are where a study is so focused, the variables controlled so tightly, that conclusions are not easily generalizable. A very narrow study might examine just one design (e.g. one app or a website). The outcomes of narrow studies are probably useless to somebody who isn't facing a near identical problem.

Since hypothetico-deductivist science has problems explaining design due to feedback loops and narrow conclusions then what might be a good approach? Surely there has to be something more rigorous than connoisseurship, visual intelligence or intuition? It turns out that there might be; Complex Adaptive Systems Theory is improving techniques towards a Science of Complexity. This area fits quite well with what Rittel and Archer were articulating.

Complex systems have agents that signal each other via relationships. Feedback loops are just natural parts of the system. There is also the property of emergence - where very simple interactions create the appearance of complex behaviour by the whole system. A complex system is more than just the sum of its parts.

Designers know about the dangers of mindless deconstruction and that design is synergestic. The whole is greater than the parts. Here’s a word play; make deconstruction = reductivism and synergy is emergence. Complexity science seems to be a good fit.

Computer based tools for working with complexity are improving beyond what Rittel and Archer had available. Design could now be treated as an applied domain within complexity science. Complexity is not a silver bullet (or golden hammer) but it could produce insights with a rigor that our intuition-based methods alone cannot provide. What might we do with such understanding? How about better design education and better design software.

Design Demons: The Pragmatist Demon

An earlier post gave an overview of the design demons: Creative, Critic and Pragmatist. This post takes a closer look at the Pragmatist Demon. A designer should develop ability in each of the each of their demons so that the overall team is stronger.

The Pragmatist demon ensures that things gets done. The Pragmatist can be overly economical and un-ambitious in the quest to get things completed. When the Critic Demon is insisting on quality and the Creative demon is insisting on novelty, an overly strong pragmatist can overrule these to complete a solution that is too watered down. The Critic demon is most useful at the beginning of a project (feasibility) and at near the end (deadline crunch). The Pragmatist demon will stifle good ideas from the Creative demon if the Pragmatist is too loud during the concepting phase. The Pragmatist demon's favourite word is: trade-off.

The problem with trade-offs is that the value of a project can be deleteriously compromised if the novelty or quality is watered down.

The underdeveloped Pragmatist demon is unable to set and meet deadlines. The underdeveloped Pragmatist will allow the Creative demon too long to discover the perfect idea and allow the Critic demon to continually nitpick at problems in the design. A person with a weak Pragmatist demon may be full of good ideas and even have some projects started - but little is actually finished.

The strength of the Pragmatist demon can be improved through practice. Set clear constraints (budget, materials, deadlines) for projects and stick to them. Completing work is the life-force of this demon. Any study into process, workflow and project management will permanently strengthen this demon. Writing proposals and problem solving in constrained situations are the Pragmatic demon's gym workout.

The noisy pragmatist will unnecessarily hurry the Creative and Critic demons into doing substandard work. The noisy Pragmatist will discourage the Creative demon by saying the ideas are impractical. By prematurely constraining the Creative demons then concepts might be unnecessary weak. The noisy Pragmatist might overrule the quality decisions of the Critic and this could ruin the polish of the project. However, a noisy pragmatist that gets work out the door is probably the least worst noisy demon because getting stuff done matters most.

A noisy Pragmatist demon can be taught to speak only in turn. Force yourself to use a standard process for projects and do not deviate from the standard process without permission from a mentor. Allow the Creative and Critic demons space to speak before applying "practical" constraints.

A weak Pragmatist demon is best trained through the successful completion of many projects. One way to do this by setting constrained projects (time, budget, other) that must have an output. This will improve the Pragmatist's ability to estimate feasibility going into a project and the constraints will force the Pragmatist to balance priorities in the later stages.

A strong Pragmatist demon is important for a designer to select good projects and complete them on time and in budget. Working to improve the Critic demon will give long term benefit to the designer because completed projects are better than incomplete projects.

Design Demons: The Critic Demon

An earlier post gave an overview of the design demons: Creative, Critic and Pragmatist. This post takes a closer look at the Critic Demon. A designer should also seek to develop ability in each of the each of their demons so that the overall team is stronger.

The Critic Demon is more strongly related with the left side of the brain. It is the analytic thinker that evaluates and judges the ideas flowing from the Creative demon. The Critic demon can be overly picky and will have impossibly high standards. When the Critic demon is rejecting all ideas then perhaps trade-offs should be made in the design. The Critic demon is most suited to the development and refinement stages of the design process. The Critic demon will cripple the Creative demon if the Critic demon has influence during the Concepting phases. The Critic demon's favourite word is: Perfection.

The problem with perfection is that there is never a single solution and design is often a trade off between many competing factors.

The underdeveloped Critic demon will be unable to properly evaluate the ideas of the Creative demon. The underdeveloped Critic will allow poorly resolved and aesthetically unpolished work to progress. A person with a weak critic demon and good execution skills will make a high volume of rough work. They might be successful through volume alone.

The strength of the Critic demon can be improved through education, reflection and critique (see the critique section). Critical analysis and logical thought is the life-force of this demon. Any study into understanding of design theory, history and case studies will permanently strengthen this demon. The act of reviewing and thinking about design work - especially honest criticism confirmed by trusted peers - is the Critic demon's gym workout.

The noisy Critic will distract the Creative demon and may war with the Pragmatist demon during the later stages of the project. The Critic will discourage the Creative demon by saying how each idea of stupid and this will stop the Creative demon from leaping from idea to idea. The pragmatist will want to finish a project but the Critic demon will insist that it is completed properly before it can be released - even if this means expending more resources than allowed for the project. This can delay the delivery of a project.

A noisy Critic demon can be taught to speak only in turn. Use good conceptualizing procedures where the Creative is free to talk for a set period of time before the Critic can judge the ideas. Standard brainstorming technique is to simply record all ideas without judgment or editing for a set period of time and only then allow for the Critic to speak. Focusing on the resources allowed for a project (esp. the deadline) gives the Pragmatist demon enough power to overcome the Critic. A beginner design can delegate the critic function to a trusted and more experienced peer. This should eventually train the critic to influence at the most useful times.

A strong Critic demon is important for a designer to produce professionally polished works that are executed well. Working to improve the Critic demon will give long term benefit to the designer.

Design Demons: The Creative Demon

An earlier post gave an overview of the design demons: Creative, Critic and Pragmatist. This post takes a closer look at the Creative Demon.

Each of the demons has their own levels of ability and influence. Ability is the strength of the demon in their specialisation. Influence is how likely the designer is to listen to demon. Each demon‘s talents are better suited for different parts of the design process therefore a designer should train themselves to minimise the influence of each demon and instead judge when their advice is most appropriate. A designer should also seek to develop strength in each of the each of their demons so that the overall team is stronger.

The Creative Demon is strongly related with the right side of the brain. It is the lateral thinker that comes up with the original ideas. Many of the Creative demons ideas are impractical, but one should not discourage the Creative demon from making them. When somebody has Designer's Block then their Creative demon is tired and out of ideas (see the Creativity section for help). The Creative Demon gets enthusiasm and rewards from coming up with many cool ideas. This makes the Creative demon very useful during the concept stage of the design process but a distracting influence during the development and production stages. However, the Creative demon can be useful during problem solving that can happen during production. The Creative demon's favourite word is Freedom.

The underdeveloped creative demon can come up with only derivative ideas occupying a limited range. A person with a underdeveloped creative demon but with strong execution skills will be very good within a small number of visual styles. This person will follow tutorials on the internet on how to produce some effect in popular software.

The strength of the Creative demon can be improved through stimulation and exposure to many different ideas. Inspiration is the life-force of this demon and it must be constantly replenished. Viewing the design works of others, visual art, music, culture and new experiences all provide inspirational fuel. Increasing the visual knowlege of the designer makes their creative demon permanently stronger. Also the act of creation in itself - especially when creating with others - is the equivalent of sending the Creative demon to the gym.

The noisy creative demon will continue to distract the designer way past the time concepting is completed. A noisy creative demon will always interupt with a completely different approach while the designer is trying to develop and produce an already selected idea. This can pull the designer off track and if they are seduced by their Creative demon's voice then they will always come with something new instead of finishing what they have started. This can delay the execution and delivery of a project.

A noisy creative demon can be taught to speak only in turn. Until the Creative demon knows to only speak in turn or when something is very important, the designer should move deliberately through each stage of the design process. At the end of each stage the designer should force themselves to make a decision that is not reversible without a second opinion from a more experienced colleague/friend. This should eventually train the Creative dragon to be noisy and quiet at the right times.

A strong creative demon is important for a designer to produce works that go beyond the mundane and ordinary. Working to improve the Creative demon will give long term benefit to the designer.

Scope Creep is your Friend

We all have those clients – the ones that have a huge idea but only a tiny budget. It is impossible to deliver on their grand vision but maybe you can help them with a first step. And then there is the “just had a cool idea” client who creates scope creep.

As design projects get larger with more deliverables and much more coding scope creep becomes a real issue. The default answer is to contract tightly so scope creep is prohibited. But without some scope creep the project risks becoming irrelevant to the client. The unhappy client then might look elsewhere for the next job.

Both these clients can be dealt with in much the same way. Project management techniques currently being explored in software development (Agile and Lean) have direct parallels to design projects. We can start with some fuzzy overall goals and then iterate towards them learning as we go. This means that what was once evil scope creep is now considered a vital part of thinking and learning about the needs of the project.

Some of the commercial designers I have spoken to recently have started doing something similar though the iteration was more driven by a sales need to generate more income from previous customers. The subtle shift in iterative design projects is to treat every customer as a relationship where you are both journeying together. Each small project is another step closer to the goal.

The sales script goes like this: Keep selling the customer on their enthusiasm for their big idea. Talk universe conquering stuff. Then get the client talking about a small first step. Make it something of real value but requiring little risk/effort by either side. Fit within the tiny budget.

Completing that first step project is like dating. Each party gets to see if things with the other will work out without having wasted too much energy. There is an implied expectation that further work will arise but client or designer are both free to depart at this point. That is the sales advantage of this approach – the client is already thinking about the next small job to do with your design company.

After that first step hold a "retrospective"/reflection both within the design studio and with the client. Were their processes that could be improved? What worked well? What could be improved? What did we learn from this project? What are the new ideas we have for the next small project? – see no longer evil scope creep but friendly extra business.

As small tasks are completed (and presumably you’ve been paid) momentum and energy begin to build around the project. Listen to the client and together agree on “next steps” that will bring value to their business.

For the free-lancer a few tasks will tell you if the client is worth building a relationship with. If the client has complex needs then consider offering to go on retainer so that they (and you) have greater control over the budget.

Working in small iterative projects with retrospection before quickly iterating helps to build stronger relationships and should result in projects that are more relevant. Treating scope creep as a positive thing will eliminate a source of negativity in the client-designer relationship. Scope creep is then your friend because it brings repeat business to you.

Say Hello to Your Design Demons

Based upon more than a decade in graphic design education I have a working theory called “Design demons” to explain the psychology behind the design process. In a previous post I looked at how design schools grades matched particular designers. Design demons more specifically looks at how the personality of the designer relates to the design process and therefore acts as a basis for giving individualised advice for designers to develop themselves.

There are three primary demons in the designer’s mind that each battle for attention. These are the Creative, the Critic and the Pragmatist. The label demon was chosen because these are powerful forces that can both help and overwhelm. Each demon has a different level of loudness, ability and affinity for a stage of the design process.

The Creative demon is the divergent thinker. Full of enthusiasm, curiosity and ideas this demon always has a positive attitude: “Wouldn’t it be cool if .... “ The Creative demon is the wellspring of new ideas. The Creative demon is at their best during the early “Concepting” stages of the design process though the Creative demon can have a role to play in later stages for problem solving. However, if the Creative demon is always coming up with new ideas then the project will neither be polished nor finished on time.

The Critic demon evaluates ideas and judges them. A strong Critic demon enables the designer to choose their best concepts and refine them further. The Critic demon decides when an idea is good enough to pursue further. Therefore the Critic demon relates to the Development and Refinement stages of the design process. An overly negative Critic demon will trap a designer into constantly going back to the drawing board. A poorly developed critic is unable to make decisions.

The Pragmatist demon is the taskmaster. This demon watches the clock, the budget, the ability of the designer and other available resources. The demon tells the Critic demon to stop being so picky and to move on because the deadline is looming. A weak Pragmatist demon will miss milestones. An overly safe Pragmatist demon will only allow easy to produce, safe ideas to progress. The Pragmatist is most useful in the feasibility and production stages of the design process.

Developing ability in each demon is part of a good design education. For beginning designers they will learn to listen to each demon in turn as they progress through the design process. More experienced designers can allow all the demons to speak at once.

Example of Design Demons 1: Often highly creative people struggle in graphic design programs because their Critic demon is too weak to rank concepts and the Pragmatist demon is not strong enough to keep an eye on the clock. Right up to the last minute their loud Creative demon will be feeding them with crazy off-the-wall and impractical ideas. These people can become successful designers by reigning in the Creative demon and allowing the other demons room to develop.

Example of Design Demons 2: Sometimes a designer can get stuck in a loop where the Creative demon cannot come up with anything to satisfy the Critic demon. This is either a sign that the Critic demon is too loud and the Pragmatist demon needs to make the Critic demon choose something that is “good enough”. Or, it could be a sign that the designer needs additional help in developing ability in the Creative demon.

My hope is that thinking in terms of Design Demons helps educating designers and gives a framework for designers to self-evaluate their strengths.

Future Design Software: Design Anywhere, Anytime

Mobile computing and cloud computing are big trends in computing at the moment. Mobile computing (and tablet computing) is the push for smaller devices that travel with us. Cloud computing is the push for computing to happen in large data centers connected to over the internet instead of on local machines. Graphic design has resisted these trends because it requires flexible and powerful workstations but it is undeniable that these two trends will have an impact on future design software.

There is an saying that “The best camera is the one that’s with you” (Chase Jarvis). This could also be applied to the idea that the best computing device is the one that’s with you. As mobile devices increase in capability it is inevitable that we will be doing more and more design work on them. Today, capable mobile devices can update websites, color correct photographs, edit videos and sketch concepts. While the productivity does not yet match desktop computers with more powerful processors and larger screens, it might be quicker to just do something on a mobile device in the moment than travel back to a more capable computer.

This is highlights an inherent weakness with desktop workstations – they are not easily portable and thus remain fixed in location. The trend is for people to spend less time at a personal non-portable computer and get out and about more. This means that personal computing becomes less important and mobile computing increases in importance.

Laptop computers are not really ideal. They are somewhat portable but battery charge life is still too short, the device too heavy for casual just-in-case carrying and the screen and trackpad combination not ideal for interaction. Laptops lack the always-on property of other mobile devices. Laptops will live on as slightly more portable versions of personal desktop computers but will generally lose out to other mobile devices like tablets.

At present most cloud based services work on data-storage with a web-application front end and maybe some custom software installed on local machines. In the future more applications with better interaction than current web-application silos will live in the cloud also. Computing will also be pushed into the cloud. This means that when the local device encounters a task that overwhelms it then that processing task can be seamlessly performed on the cloud. Seamless means with no user intervention required. Imagine if videos and complex 3D material rendered faster than realtime because of the economies of scale that large cloud computing datacenters can achieve.

The future will have more public kiosk computers and less laptops. When a mobile device is not enough then a designer can login to another other computer (such as a kiosk) and have their data, applications and processing power immediately available in a secure fashion. This can happen on a computer borrowed in a client company or a kiosk computer in a coffee shop/library. Desktops and laptops will become less numerous as more portable mobile devices become more prevalent and designers can rely on access to convenient access to computing kiosks.

Designers will then be freed to travel more – networking, visiting clients, getting in touch with their inspiration, discovering their target audiences. Journeys like this will enrich the design process rather than be seen as unwelcome distractions from productivity. Design might become more human again.

(Read more articles in the Future Design Software series.)

Future Design Software: Streamlining Critique

Critique is important for designers to judge the appropriateness of their designs and to progress in their craft. Unfortunately for the working designer the pressures of budget and time and the difficulty of finding people to critique work mean that critique rarely happens. Future design software could change that.

Ideally designers should get critique from designer peers, clients and the target audience. Each brings a different perspective to the work that is important for different reasons. Client critique is usually built into the design process because it is the easiest to do – there is often a single client representative who critiques before they signoff work.

Critique from peer designers is more difficult to come by. There are design communities like Behance and DeviantArt that will critique but those communities are too public for pre-release design and the level of critique is often not high – despite being enthusiastic. Design critique should come from experienced people whose opinions you trust. These people are probably already in your social network (like Facebook).

Research I co-supervised for Kerrin Meek’s Honours work looked at how social media could be used for designer critique. While in the early stages, many good ideas were explored. The central idea is that by extending critique notifications into the activity stream of others and making those critiques easy to accomplish, peer designer critique might become more successful.

Facebook already allows for posting images and collecting comments. This can functionality can be extended by adding semantic differentials, alternative image voting, and critiques where hotspots can be highlighted for comment. This can be done via a third-part website that integrates tightly into the Facebook experience using the existing Facebook API.

Target audience critique is a more difficult to organize – especially with the speed demanded by many design projects. Market research companies already have large databases of willing participants sorted by demographics that are used to working online. The missing piece of future design software is a website where designers can place their work for critique in standard forms (comments, votes, surveys, questionnaire, semantic differentials), assign a budget, and have that targeted towards a particular demographic. If the process was thus streamlined through future design software then costs could come down and turn-around times improved. As costs and time decrease then the feasibility of adding user critique to a project increases.

Future design software has the potential to revolutionize designer peer critique and make target audience critique more affordable both in terms of time and money. Would you consider expanding critique in your projects?

(This is another article in the Future Design Software series.)

Research and the Design Process

Good design process starts with research. Designers have learned to research from a variety of sources and things like Google and Google image search have made research easier than before. This article covers why designers should research, what they should research, how to research and some tips on gaining the most from research.

Research has two purposes. The first is to inform designers on what they need to know for a particular project that they do not already know – or at least to remind them. Secondly research should inspire designers by pointing out areas where the designer can improve upon the status quo in order to create a true point of difference to their work.

Research for a design project should research anything where the designer is deficient in knowledge. This will usually be around the client, their business, the design works used by the competition and the messages the client wants to communicate. Target audience research is also important where the designer does not already know them well. Finally, if the designer is unfamiliar with a particular medium then the social and technical aspects of that medium will need research too.

Clients can supply answers to many of the research questions relating to themselves and their business. Larger clients may also have good research relating to their target audiences available from their marketing departments. Research into the design in use by competitors can be found either online, in the yellow pages or by visiting competitors and taking ephemera. Research into medium can also be done online and designers should consider trialing technical media skills before using them for real in a project.

While the internet has revolutionized the availability of research information, don’t forget that books, libraries, newspapers, trade shows, television and site visits are also great sources of information. While online research is fast it is not as thorough and does not necessarily gather examples of how a competitor’s brand was applied across more than just the online medium.

Designers research the design works used by competitors to get ideas on the visual signs that are used to denote particular segments of industry. For example courier companies and fast food outlets like to use red and seafood outlets use blue. This knowledge enables the designer to produce work that communicates the relevant industry segment, but does not come too close to competition’s design. Competitive research should also give the designer ideas on where they can improve the status quo because being just as good is not good enough.

The tangible outputs of research are pages of information and visual examples. The visual material may be eventually formed into mood boards. Good research should be properly completed by being summarized then having recommendations drawn from the summary. Many designers do this step in their head but for larger projects that potentially cover many designers, the summary and recommendations should be explicitly put onto paper to cover make them more communicable to the rest of the design team.

Good research does not need to take much time on smaller projects. It can be done quickly and not only informs a strong concepting round but can also avoid the embarrassment of producing a design solution that looks too much like a competitor’s.

The Designer Personality

Design is a curious activity that mixes many disciplines, modes of thinking and personal traits and focuses them towards achieving an outcome. The designers mind can process different modes of thought each with different value systems. Pro-designers do not even switch between thinking modes – their minds just think multiple ways in parallel. Previously eturnerx has explored how to spot a potential designer early. As an extension this article explores the personality traits that make the designer successful.

The designer is both creative and critical. Creating and to critiquing are in constant conflict within a designer. The trick is to let the creative run free and the critic come in later to provide the reality check. If the critic is too strong then the designer will become paralysed. The systematic design process even instructs designers when to be creative and when to critique (e.g. during concepting).

Design is a pragmatic activity that must balance many factors to ensure good outcomes. As well as considering budgets, deadlines and personal skill levels, designers must also consider the message, the medium and the target audience. Because design solutions are ultimately born into the real fancy theories count and elegant production count for nothing compared to just making it work. Designers first concentrate on getting it done, then (if time permits) on doing it right.

Good designers are deadline focused. They manage their time / task allocations with a keen eye on that deadline. This deadline thing is so innate that designers easily become frustrated with those with more lax attitudes to deadlines.

Designers are inherently results focused. They can sometimes become so tunnel visioned about result they want that they do not care about the journey towards producing that result. This unfortunately includes neglecting personal relationships with co-workers, friends and even family.

Designers have an obsessive attention to details. Little things annoy them. Designers have strong emotive reactions to even tiny niggles they see in the visual world around them. They will use up all available amount of time adjusting something over and over until it is just right. This behavior confuses outsiders who cannot see what the fuss is about because they do not understand the aesthetic considerations at play. One area novice designers can improve their productivity is to avoid endlessly adjusting something: just decide and move on.

In order to pragmatically weigh up the attention to detail with the deadline urge successful designers have learned to “let it go”. That is, once time is up, the work is complete. Yes, the work would be with more time – but the needs of the next job soon consume them and any regrets are soon forgotten away.

Designers selflessly remove themselves from the equation. They facilitate a client’s message via a media so that it is clearly understood by the audience. That leaves little room for artistic self expression. Designers also understand that creativity for them is not about the most original outcome but about the most appropriate outcome.

A designer is confident enough that they can take critique of their work in a positive manner. They know that while they should "sell" their design and educate the client, critique is not about automatically defending their work, the critique is usually motivated by an honest desire to improve the work. They have long since learned to deal with the emotions that go with having work critiqued.

(If you liked this article then you might also like: What do Design School Grades Mean?)

Concepting: A how to guide

Creating concepts (or concepting) is the most creative part of the design process. During this phase designers will explore widely looking for a diverse range of potential solutions. Done properly, good concepts lay the foundation for great work at the end of the process. Good concepts executed well are the ultimate aim. Poor concepts will fail even if the final execution is good.

Experienced designers will abbreviate the concepting phase – sometimes skipping concepts altogether and going straight into refinement. An experienced designer may also concept directly in their minds. Doing this successfully depends on the creative skill and experience of the designer and is something new designers will trouble doing. One reason for skipping paper concepting is the pressure to deliver to tight deadlines – though proper concepting need not take much time. When an experienced designer feels uninspired they can fall back into using a more methodical approach to concepting.

Concepting should be preceeded by research. The more familiar the designer is with the client, their industry and the target audience then the less research is needed.

Work on paper. Stay off the computer during initial concepting because the computer is not fast enough. The computer screen is low resolution compared to paper so often stacking concepts side by side is difficult and takes effort. Even with a drawing tablet there are just too many distractions.

Draw ideas quickly as they come. Hold the positive aims of the project in your head. Switch off critical thinking and do not worry about the project’s constraints and boundaries for now. Good concepting lets the poor ideas, the clichés, the unoriginal and the mistakes out onto paper so that they don’t mentally block the designer. This allows the designer to break through into the truly original ideas. Quantity of concepts has a better chance of producing some quality concepts then over-thinking during this phase so focus on drawing any idea that comes. Let the hand and subconscious be creative.

If the designer maintains the constraints/boundaries in their minds during concepting then they will concept ideas that fit too comfortably within those boundaries. This will result in small ideas that are unambitious and safe to the point of uselessness. It is better to have a big idea and then modify it to fit the boundaries then it is to try grow small ideas into big ideas. Find the concepts most appropriate for the audience and tweak them to fit the boundaries later. (see Pushing Boundaries)

Once intial concepts are on paper then they can be critically looked at to eliminate the poor concepts and select the best ideas. Most jobs will require selecting a few concepts for the client to choose from. In this case select the strongest different ideas – not the ideas that look the best. If the ideas are not strong enough then it might be necessary to rewind the process: more freeform concepting or even more research.

Concepting need not take long. It can be done in minutes on a napkin. Ideally concepting should end when the designer has strong concepts but there is never an unlimited amount of time in the budget. What elevates a designer’s creativity above that of the average person is being able to come up with high quality ideas in a limited time-span. This is something that improves with experience.

In summary: research, concept on paper, suspend critical thinking, focus on quantity, select the strongest ideas.

(Read other eturnerx articles on the Design Process and Creativity)

Design is Decision Making

Design is a decision making process. It is a search for possible solutions then deciding which of the solutions to execute. The design process gives a broad range of possible solutions that can then be agreed upon and then refined into the best solution.

A broad range of possible solutions is good in design projects for many reasons. The designer might not fully understand what the client wants or the target audience needs. There is difficultly in communicating design goal nuances and so the best way to deal with this is by proposing potential prototype solutions (“concepts”). The aesthetic needs of a project might also need exploration to avoid unoriginal clichés. A situation (the total of the boundaries) might be so unique and outside the experience of the designer that extra care must be taken in finding the best solution. Also, the creative thinking of a designer is usually done through the action of pen to paper, mouse to screen.

The design process is meant to come to the “best” (most appropriate) solution. This is great when a designer has the luxury of time. Systematic decision making, such as the design process, become less and less useful as time becomes pressured.

Fire Commanders work in a very time pressured situation where the criteria for decision making is “safely and quickly”. They know that a decision that gets the job done safely (which implies quickly before the fire spreads) is better than waiting around for the “best” solution. Fire Commanders make decisions by initially assessing a situation, coming up with a plan, checking the plan for likely failures then executing the plan. During execution they will constantly reassess the situation and tweak the plan. Fire Commanders do not have the luxury of time to consider many alternative plans. So how do they make the right decision? Experience.

Interestingly, a proposal for Fire Commander training looks very similar to the educational models used in atelier design schools. Design schools (e.g. mine) train both systematic process and experience - and so equip students well for a variety of decision making in their future design careers.

Many graphic design industry professionals I’ve spoken to work in time pressured situations so their decision making abbreviates the systematic design process until it resembles the decision making model of the Fire Commander. This does risk “best” for “expedient” – but often expedient is good enough. Again, expedient decision making is most successful when the decision maker is experienced.

The best way to learn to make good decisions is through experience. It is even better if that experience is guided by a mentor. The best way to gain experience is through doing then reflecting upon what was done. Understanding the work of other great designers can also teach a new designer how things can be done. Just looking at a design work is not enough. Understanding a design means connecting the design to its proper context by decoding the message, the medium the target audience, the client and how these all affected the work.

So, the default rule is to always follow the full systematic design process. Realistically this rule will be broken often. Rule breaking is most successfully done by those with experience. When a designer is not confident in their experience for a situation (or just simply uninspired) they should expect to spend more time and follow the full systematic design process.

Inspiration: The how to guide

Designers work best when inspired. The muse myth externalizes the source of inspiration as something divine and therefore something at the whim of the gods/the universe and thus beyond the control of the individual. This mythic viewpoint also assumes that inspiration is beyond teaching and training. This attitude is just wrong.

Inspiration for designers is the motivation to create. A designer who is feeling uninspired feels both unmotivated and uncreative. Things that are inspirational both motivate us to create and make us think creatively. Inspirational things give us the imagination to see original possibilities and the motivation to realize those ideas.

In low-inspiration situations the systematic designer can fall back on the design process and hope that jump starts inspiration. Just forcing themselves through the process can unlock creativity and create the momentum to motivation. However the design process benefits from inspirational flair, so what if the inspiration block remains?

Focus on fixing the motivation first. Low-energy levels will reduce motivation so fix that by sleeping, eating, going for a walk or waiting for illness to pass. Do whatever it takes to get the brain active again. Deal with any negative emotional issues and distractions. Then focus on the benefits of completing the task at hand. Motivation is about positivity so visualize what completing the task will enable you to do. Complete a goal? Afford a night out with friends? A new toy?

Sparking creativity is about working the imagination. Reboot imagination by playing “what if” scenarios in your head. Think of two seemingly ridiculous ideas together and imagine how they could be related together. Look at images and pick parts of them and think how they could apply to your project. Technically inspiration can be found anywhere, but designers often find inspiration in nature, the surrounding environment (take walk), the fine arts and the work of other great designers. Being around other creative people can help you get into the right modes of thinking.

Inspiration is the mindset of curiosity, imagination and wonder. It is a space where all things are possible and all ideas have great outcomes. Expose yourself to new things, explore your imagination and wonder “what if”. Cultivate these things and inspiration will come.

MAYA and Creative Horizons Theory

Industrial designer Raymond Loewy pioneered the concept of the best solution being the Most Advanced Yet Most Acceptable (MAYA). The concept looks at appropriateness from two angles – the first being how advanced the idea was then limiting that by what the target audience would find acceptable. Loewy said “The adult public's taste is not necessarily ready to accept the logical solutions to their requirements if the solution implies too vast a departure from what they have been conditioned into accepting as the norm.”
The best designers exercise high MAYA, that is they have their advanced ideas but know when to allow acceptability to limit that idea. Once an idea was in the public space then what is acceptable to the public expands because they have been exposed to new ideas. A famous example is the Beatles who started by releasing fairly safe popular music but became increasingly experimental as their fame allowed.
As always, when concepting ideas always start with creating the most advanced ideas first. During concepting boundaries” (and “Yet Acceptable” is a boundary) must be relaxed or overly safe ideas will happen. Once the concepts are created then the “Yet Acceptable” constraint can then be used to filter the concepts. The essence of the MAYA ideal is to be touching the “Yet Acceptable” boundary, not to remain safely within it.
Creative Horizons Theory (CHT) suggests that most people can only see a single horizon away from their present set of ideas. CHT also proposes a set of creativity labels for each horizon step away from the status quo (Copy, Derivative, Cool, Visionary, Crackpot). Both MAYA and CHT say that a solution too advanced will be unacceptable to its audience. CHT further suggests that an idea too far from the status quo is based on conjectures and assumptions about the solution that are more likely to be wrong the further from the status quo they are.
When you have your next wild idea consider using the lessons of MAYA to making the idea more immediately acceptable by walking it back a few Creative Horizons. Once the revised idea has been accepted then the true vision will have a better chance.

Pushing Boundaries

Graphic designers are always encouraged to push the boundaries. What does this mean and how do we do this successfully? Pushing a boundary means testing a pre-conceived limitation on the design project with ideas that ignore (or modify) that limitation. Any constraint or boundary may be pushed provided that it increases the appropriateness of the work.

A graphic designer must understand the boundaries of the project. Boundaries include: client preferences, budget, time, designer skills, what is appropriate for the target audience. Some boundaries can be quantified (deadline and budget) while others are more nebulous (client preference). Most boundaries will require client buy-in to change. A change in budget or a deadline could have legal ramifications if not agreed to by the client.

Beware the lenient boundary – this is where a client has given more rope than they are honestly prepared to accept. For example: The client says “we don’t want to look like other widget companies” then starts critiques with “doesn’t look enough like a widget company”. If this happens then note how your understanding of the boundary has shifted or be prepared for many rounds of revisions.

Another boundary is the limitations of visual thought in the designer. Initial concepts are often cliché and follow the trends of the day. Visual research is great to inform a designer but inform does not equal copying or direct derivation. Following the design process helps designers break free from the boundaries of initial thoughts.

Concept ideas that are bigger than the constraints set by the boundaries. Targeting a design for the boundaries results in work that is too safe. It is much better to have to scale a big idea downwards to fit boundaries than to scale a small idea upwards. At a minimum a scaled big idea will still contain a suggestion or vision of the bigger idea. Usually the process of scaling the idea will help a designer just which of the boundaries can be pushed. “Status quo plus one plus one” thinking can be useful in imagining concepts to become larger.

A tip in pushing visual boundaries is to temporarily relax boundaries one at a time then try concepting with each relaxed boundary in mind. Concepting becomes a matter of asking “What if that boundary was further out? What ideas are now possible?” Relaxing boundaries is a brute force way for out of the box thinking because it makes room for the designer to challenge the box itself.

Related articles: Creative Horizons Theory, The Wow Factor

Future Design Software: Design at the level of thought, message and feeling.

Graphic design software has steadily increased in power. At first the focus was on improving the visual expression capability of the software but gradually, with the addition of work-flow tools, productivity has become important. However, today’s software is limited by a direct manipulation mindset.

Direct manipulation interfaces allow designers to tweak individual elements on screen by using a mouse and keyboard (and/or commonly a tablet). This means that the designer’s vision must be transformed into discrete steps of computer interactions - think of it like the visual equivalent of programming. Any adjustments to the “feel” of a design piece are non-trivial and will often involve many interactions.

What if there was software for designers that worked more at the level of thought, message and feel? There are two areas of research that combine to produce the design software of the future: Generative Design and Aesthetic Science.

Generative design systems take parameters then produce a set of candidate designs for a designer to select from. Sophisticated generative design systems can then use those selected items to further iterate and produce more (and hopefully better) candidate designs. Imagine feeding the text and image library for a poster to software and having it come up with thousands of concepts for you within seconds.

Aesthetic Science tests (usually following Psychology modes of testing) for aesthetics that are universal. Once an aesthetic principle has been established as universal then it can be algorithmically modelled. A computer can run the algorithms to judge design pieces on an aesthetic level. Yes, aesthetics is a complicated area but we do not need a complete understanding to produce computer tools that can still be useful.

Examples of existing work in aesthetic algorithms are Donald Knuth and the TEX typesetting system, auto-balance/contrast and colour correction in photographic software and the Text Colour Contrast algorithms used by the W3C. My own research is searching for algorithms for measuring the design principle of unity. Unity has already been established as an aesthetic universal by fMRI brain scanner research in Europe. My research is in the blue-sky stage.

A criticism of generative design is that the generated candidate designs tend to break too many aesthetic universals. The designer ends up weeding out useless chaff rather than thinking at the level of message and feel.

Future design software could use a generative system approach but incorporate aesthetic algorithms to pre-screen the concepts shown to the designer. The designer can then discard designs, keep designs and even use a semantic differential like system for rating the feel of designs. Then, the generative system can iterate more concepts – for as many rounds as the designer deems necessary. Changing the feel of a design is simply a matter of asking for something in emotive terms : e.g. A bit happier and a stronger sense of community. At the end the designer gets a file they can load into direct manipulation software (like InDesign) for refinement. This process could take less than five minutes.

UPDATE 20130401: Complexity Science (eturnerx blog article) could provide insights that help build a generative design system. Conventional science methods might be too limited.

Welcome to a more human and productive design future. There will be more articles in this series.

I invite your comments. Your reactions inspire me. I hope my ideas are worthy of sharing with your posse.

This is the first article in the Future Design Software series. Read the second article: File|Save is stupid. What should replace it?.)

The wow factor: Creative thinking and solving latent desires

We all have had that moment where we saw something and automatically generated a “Wow” in us. This can happen when that thing made us realize it solves a problem that we did not know that we had. The cool comes from doing what we did not realize we needed.

Asking a target audience or client how to improve something gives only “status quo plus 1” type responses that are a only single evolutionary step beyond what they have now. Doing those things is not going to knock anybodies’ socks off. The results will be good but hardly revolutionary because the improvements are all rather obvious.

One way of achieving “the wow” in design work is to solve for latent needs. Latent needs are needs that people did not realize that they had. An easy hack to discover latent needs is to imagine if the user or client had the improvements that they originally asked for then imagine how their desires would then change and then guess what they would ask for next.

This kind of “status quo plus one plus one” creative thinking takes an understanding of your client and audience but appears as genius if you can pull it off.

UPDATE: An explanation of the creative theory behind status quo+1+1 thinking.