More to come…when I come up with them!

With Pinterest climbing the ranks and gaining new users daily, Facebook needs to ramp up their product and as a result, are banking on Instagram to help them create an exciting, fun, intriguing, awesome of all awesomeness, user-friendly product.

Come what may.

Two big takeaways from the article:
“Features don’t matter nearly as much as user-experience.”

Users could care less if a service is going to make decent margins in the future; however, they do care if a product is entertaining… “And that is what ultimately makes a company great: It has to make great things.”

Think about it… I leave the office to step outside for 5 minutes and I feel much more revived upon returning. Its imperative to step outside the box you’re working in (or on), relax your mind, maybe stare at a few strangers and/or buildings, and thereafter walk back into your building with a different mindset.

This is a cool thing for UI designers, as they can explore different gestures or interactions the user will have with the interface. By playing around and exploring alternative ways, new ideas may likely spark.

“If it doesn’t make sense in physical reality, why should it act that way in your app?”

“CREATING AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE DESIGN CAN THRIVE SHOULD BE THE GREATER FOCUS, NOT JUST HIRING SUPERSTARS.”

It’s vital to set goals that are aligned with your organization’s corporate strategy. By having a clear design vision and strategy, you’ll have a better idea of what you’re shooting for and how to place the appropriate talent and other resources to execute the plan.

Need help aligning goals and strategies to accomplish the goals? Check out tools such as organizational road mapping and/or the resourcing to support the plan. Then, come together as an organization and define your vision, goals, and strategy through effective design thinking, but remember…

“DESIGN THINKING WILL NOT IN AND OF ITSELF DRIVE BETTER DESIGN.”

Design and design thinking are two different things. A company cannot solely rely on design thinking to solve its problems. Instead, they must be thought of as two different things that, when effectively used together, create for a better design. In addition, that “better design” may not come from off-the-chain designers, rather great designers who work exceptionally well with your company goals and strategy. Moreover, be mindful that “creating sustainable competitive advantage through design is not a quick or easy task.” However,

“ONE WAY TO SHORTEN THE JOURNEY IS TO CONCENTRATE SOME PORTION OF THE EFFORT.”

One reason why its not so easy of a task is that every organization must build a culture of design, this is some portion of becoming a kick-butt design powerhouse. This culture of design means that everyone in the organization will understand what design is, how it is used for strategic advantage in the organization, how and when design resources are used, what the work of design entails, and how design efforts should integrate with the company’s production processes. Are we clear? EVERYONE.

To conclude, consistently great corporate design is the product of the following elements:

1.    A vision and strategy that is well-articulated and understood by its organization;
2.    leadership that is capable and committed to driving its vision;
3.    an organization that is structured and resourced for success;
4.    a talent pool that is diverse in design disciplines and deployed at key points of functional integration;
5.    a culture that embraces the myriad dimensions of design.

Similarly, for those of us who are relatively new to the creative process, “for the first couple of years you make stuff, its just not that good… it’s trying to be good, it has potential, but it’s not.” states Ira Glass.

A coworker passed along this fantastic quote, as the process of UX Hires is going through its second creative iteration.

Ira Glass follows up her claim above by stating, “But your [design] taste- the thing that got you into the game- is still killer.” What Ms. Glass means is that creative work takes a great deal of effort and time, both of which come through years of practice. Fighting through the frustrating process of iterations and mediocre work is necessary, though and fortunately there are ways to help the process along. For instance, putting yourself on deadlines so that every week or few days, you finish one piece. The only way to be as good as your ambitions is to fight through the creative process, one volume at a time.

“It’s gonna take a while. It’s normal to take a while. You just gotta fight your way through.”

I went to a presentation this morning called “Rythm and Flow” given by Peter Stahl. I’ve provided highlights from the talk below:

“Flow is not the property of the computer, flow happens in people. “

How do we induce flow in people if we leave them out of our designs?
Two examples of companies discussed who induce flow, and do it well, include LinkedIn and Mint.com.
On LinkedIn, there’s a profile progress bar showing the percentage of completion on a users profile. You want to continually update and complete your profile until the progress reaches 100%. You want a seamless profile, therefore you go through each section in order to fill and complete until its 100%.
On Mint, a great site for managing your finances, you’re provided a score based off your expenses. They show you ways to improve your scores, and even compute how much you need to save in order to reach your goal.

Dimensions of Flow discussed below, yet the most important thing to note is people go onto a site, seeking a pay-off and a feeling of self-gratification.

1. Clear goals and progress tracking (feedback)
2. Balance of challenge and skill
3. Sense of control
4. Focused concentration
5. Loss of self-consciousness; becoming one with the activity
6. Time distortion
7. Self-rewarding (“autotelic”) experience

“People enter a website hoping for a pay-off.”

Alongside flow, he talks about rhythm, but rhythm isn’t enough. It doesn’t guarantee a satisfying experience. “We need flow instead of rhythm.”

Interactive Rhythm

Examples of rhythm include: channel surfing, driving a car, video games, browsing the web, forms, desktop games, angry birds, twitter, youtube (the option to watch a series of additional videos after watching one; watching a chain of recommendations), Netflix (as soon as you click a star, another one pops up right away for you to click), and power point (new slide, title, bullet, bullet, bullet).

Rhythm is not enough and it needs to be interrupted in order for the users to think.  Once you get users in the process, its hard to get them out of it.

Flow, and a seamless one at that, designed with the users needs in mind, is the right way to go.

Pricing a product can be tricky, as you contemplate (as far as this product is concerned) whether or not to provide a free quick trial for the app (similar to what’s proposed below), charge users for the product from the early beginning, or to only charge a certain number of users and thereafter provide the app at no cost (probably not the best idea).

Not to mention, there’s the dilemma of whether or not to sell the app through Apple stores or to completely disregard the app and instead create a mobile website. To support this idea of a mobile website: “Creating an “app” may not be the answer at all. With HTML5 mobile websites are getting better every day and you can avoid Apple’s rules and charges.” Yet, although you save money and eliminate rules, you also lose the marketing power behind the Apple Store.

On the contrary, offering an app for free off the bat for a bit does have some advantages in visibility and introducing people to the product. By being free, it can get you on the app charts, and hopefully as a result, convert the users to buyers.

To be honest, I think it’s an excellent idea to initially offer an app for free. It gets the user familiar with the product and then, if they like it enough, they wont have an issue spending $1.99 on it.

Few price methods to share:

cost-oriented method, you first calculate the average amount it will cost you to create your app and promote it and thereafter decide the amount of profits you would like to make from it.

demand-oriented method, requires you to first determine the demand for your app and find out how much each section of your audience is willing to pay for it. Obviously, using this method means that you have to offer multiple pricing plans to your customer, each plan giving them different features.

value-oriented method of pricing allows you to price your product according to its actual value for your potential customer.

competitor-oriented method of pricing a product, you price your app in relation to the existing competition… so you better trust their price.

The CEO is in Austin, representing Motivate Design. In light of her absence, I wanted to share a worthwhile article discussing the brands making the “biggest splash” at SXSW.

“SXSW is no longer just for scrappy garage startups, as big brands are just as eager to make an impression with tech titans, bloggers, and media.”

I wonder what impression they’ve had on Mona…

Nike!

Samsung!

Chevy!

General Electric!

Nike, with their Nike+ Fuelband,  earned some publicity by creating events that would only give access to participants who had racked up a certain number of exercise points throughout the day.

Samsung’s CMO saw SXSW as a great opportunity to “provide utility”. Therefore, they displayed a giant billboard that acted like “a heat meter for all the parties.” The purpose of the billboard was to forecast which parties bystanders would want to attend.

Chevy (no surprise here) offered free rides in their Volt car line.

General Electric took a social impact spin on the “provide utility” strategy, constructing a makeshift DIY engineering lab, called the GE Garage. Maker-happy participants were provided the opportunity to create new toys with 3-D printers, create custom etches on the backs or their iPhones or laptops, or learn welding.

The ultimate goal of the Garage is to tackle larger infrastructure projects and to inspire young residents within the local community.

See here

The 5 types of work that fill your day include:

Reactionary Work: this time is spent responding to messages and requests including emails, text messages, Facebook messages, tweets, voicemails, and the obnoxiously more.

Planning Work: the time you spend arranging the various parts of your day. It’s spent scheduling and prioritizing your time, developing your systems for running meetings, and refining your systems for working. This type of work decides how your energy should be spent.

Procedural Work: the boring, administrative/maintenance stuff that we do just to keep afloat. You know those images and blah text you place into a powerpoint? Yes, that stuff.

Insecurity Work: unknowingly looking at certain statistics related to your company, or repeatedly checking what people are saying about you or your product online, etc.

Problem-Solving Work: the creative work that challenges the mind and stimulates ideas. Ah, the good stuff.

What does your work day consist of? If it’s 100% problem-solving work, we want to hear from you. Seriously.

As shown above, The Journal makes that pot of income appear small by diving it up into seven different lines. It relies upon an optical illusion. Now see another interpretation below, overseen by the left-leaning Mother Jones:

This chart is misleading, too. All of those making $200K and over are grouped into a single bar, while everyone else gets split out into relatively tiny increments. Last but not least, I present you with the same data grouped according to tax bracket:

Although its rational, you’d ideally want a chart that would explore what exactly the rich and the poor are buying with their income. Not to mention, the chart should depict how many people lie within each bracket.

A visual can make a great impact; therefore the information represented should be accurate and well thought-out.

FastCo puts it best, by saying:

“As designers it’s our responsibility to find honest ways of representing data so it isn’t used to mislead,” Peraza points out. But likewise, we should all recognize that finding the truth of a situation is an iterative process. It takes time, and trial and error and more often than not, the first few attempts at capturing what’s true are almost never right.