A late evening last night plus the early daylight savings time made for a less-than-usual bright-eyed and bushy-tailed Steve this morning. I didn’t come here to get sleep though… I can do that at work when I get back.
The first session I attended this morning was a lively discussion debating the pros and cons of user-centred design. Good cases were made by both sides. I have to say, user research is not something we’ve ever done a lot of at 76design. As one of the “con” panelists pointed out, it can be an expensive and timely process - two luxuries we can’t usually afford on a project. I think it’s something we all know is generally a worthwhile activity that will benefit the end product, but it’s just a matter of whether those benefits outweigh the cost.
A recurring idea that came up again and again (from both the pro and con side of the panel) was remembering that you’re not designing products for people but designing for the activities and situations. Instead of defining personas (you know, we have a user named John who is 45 years old, drives a Toyota Corolla, has 2 kids, goes to church on Sundays, buys low-fat cream cheese and so on) write stories about users interacting with your product (John just went to the dentist and needs to file a claim so he goes to the web site to… etc.). The latter method cuts through a lot of the chaff and guesswork that makes personas such an awkward approach and focuses on the actual activity (or series of activity) that a user would complete while using the product.
One good “con” argument (I admit, I’m a bit of a skeptic when it comes to focus groups and researching) that was made this morning and was made last year by 37signals‘ Jason Fried (again, the name dropping continues) was that users don’t necessarily know what they want, so asking them won’t give you the answers that will lead you to the best solution.
Next up, a laid back panel entitled Design Workflows at Work: How Top Designers Work Their Magic. I have to admit, I was seduced by the title on this one but was rather disappointed. First, I wouldn’t have labeled any of the panelists as “top designers”. Good designers, yes. Top designers, no. But that’s a subjective observation. The discussion itself left a lot to be desired as it didn’t seem like much preparation went into the panel. Some good points were raised about the importance of time management and having some fun distractions at work to keep the creativity high, but nothing new that really provided any insight or observations on how designer work flow can be improved.
After lunch, I attended the day’s keynote with Phil Torrone and Limor Fried. The topic du jour was the DIY movement - open source software, hardware and where it’s all heading. Where’s that you ask? Well, Limor and Phil talked about what I suppose you’d call the mashup and remix approach to hardware - everything from hacking into consumer electronics to reprogramming robot appliances to building your own gadgets. Limor showed us that staying true to the free and open source philosophy while running her kit-selling website, Adafruit, offers a viable source of income.
The two mini-sessions I attended after the keynote were: Learning Interaction Design from Las Vegas and The Future of JavaScript. Almost too quick to take any notes but the gist of the Vegas talk was drawing some not-so-obvious parallels between the Vegas “approach” to design and successful interaction design. For instance, MySpace has shown us that strong aesthetic design is definitely not a prerequisite for success. The JavaScript talk was rather technical and highlighted in exhaustive detail some of the new features added in JavaScript 1.6 (Firefox 1.5) and 1.7 (Firefox 2.0, but hopefully to be included in a future release of Internet Explorer 7) rather than talking about the future directions and possible uses of the language.
The final session of the day attracted me with its great name: Uniting the Holy Trinity of Web Design. For those who might not understand what on earth a holy trinity has to do with making web pages, the (original) tri fecta the panel intended to talk about was: HTML, CSS, and JS - but it sounds like they had a bit of a rethink and changed it to: user, development, and business. This sounded promising to me as I thought I’d get a lot more out of a less-technical session, but things didn’t really stay on topic so I didn’t get as much out of it as I would have hoped. Fellow Ottawan Jonathan Snook offered up a few good nuggets about some possible sources for failure in web projects - specifically, when business objectives are in conflict with a users’ needs (for example, a client wants to generate lots of revenue and plasters a site with online ads and totally alienates their audience).
After the day’s sessions, we headed over to the SXSW web awards and chatted with a couple of the guys from Wellington, New Zealand’s RESN Design Studio. Very nice guys who were up for two awards - including best “business: for-profit” site, which they won. Good for them.
Off to the post-awards party to do a little more socializin’…