connecting*the*dots

While listening to KQED (out of Northern California) this afternoon (I love the Rabbit Radio widget), I came across this interview with Eric Maisel. Maisel is a "Creative Coach," spending his time helping creative people (primarily, artists and writers) understand their own temperment, so that they can better apply themselves to their craft.

Maisel argues that creative people are stubborn by design, beginning at an early age. He uses examples of how specific social conditioning exercises, such as the direction to color within the lines of a coloring book, creates children who are more apt to conform in society and not follow their creative tendencies. I found that one example very interesting, as I vividly remember as a child pointing out the devisive nature of the lines in my coloring book by always lining the edges of the images with strong, thick strokes, while lightly "coloring-in" the interior of the object with the same crayon.

If I were to apply Maisel’s position to my actions as a child, it’s as if I were emphasising the borders of expectation, illustrating the very nature of their confining strokes, while simultaneously remaining safe within their domain. Well, if that were true, at least it would explain my choices to join Beta Theta Pi in college and a few conservative corporations over the short course of my career.

Maisel also discusses creative temperment in context to bipolar disorder; how in order to be creative, one has to be viscerally ready and able to fail, as creativity relates to the cycles of life and death, success and failure, planning and stumbling, etc. His understanding of cyclical conceptualization, with abstract formation and pragmatic execution is pretty spot on. Kay Redfield Jamison, an accredited psychologist suffering from manic depression, has written about the same connections to the artistic temperment for years.

The thing about our culture is that people aren’t considered “creative” unless they do something different from the normality of society. Contributing expressive, innovative or valuable output within the productive cycle of culture is a clear way to be recognized as different (Van Gogh), yet so is the temperment to the approach of creating differentiating output (Van Gogh).

Maisel and Jamison’s observations are very telling of the temperament of society itself.

Back in 1999, I found myself living in the northwestern corner of Massachusetts, working in an area tagged as Silicon Village. Yeah, it was a little premature, just like it’s cousin Silicon Forest in Portland and it’s big brother, Silicon Alley in NYC, but the dot-com era was booming and the entrepreneurial spirit had caught both Williamstown and North Adams square in the heart.

(originally uploaded by Original Sin)

It was an exciting time.

Tripod (the company I joined) had just been purchased by Lycos (or as the long-timers liked to refer to them; the Death Star) for more than $50 million dollars. The young, personal web site building company and online community had made it to the big time; now one more trophy brand in Bob Davis‘ portal empire.

But Tripod didn’t start off as a personal publishing website; they flicked on the converted cable factory lights with the intent to provide advice for college students and post-graduates in print and on the internet, while the resume engine and online community all came later. DeWitt Clinton, a Williams student and Tripod programming intern in 1996 tells it like this:

“In the beginning — and this tension carried on for years — Tripod was a content company that just happened to use the Internet. (Recall that they also had a magazine and a book published.) Thanks to some clever people like Jeff Vander Clute and Nate Kurz, a few useful ‘Tools For Life’ such as the Resume Builder, were built. These applications were an interesting synthesis of ideas from the designer(s), editors and programmers.

I would definitely say that Bo was in a position of watching what everyone came up with, rather than intentionally leading them there, saying as much in his recent book. The homepage builder was just one of these organic and surprising inventions.”

So what happened? How did the tipping point occur within Tripod itself? When did management decide to move forward and focus on personal publishing and online communities? DeWitt adds more color from an outside, post-acquisition perspective:

“The traffic generated by the home pages earned them an acquisition, not the editorial content. See the Geocities acquisition just a few months later for evidence.”

Bo Peabody, Dick Sabot and Ethan Zuckerman hired some super smart developers to get their original concepts online. They built the first online resume engine and created a place for community to form the first iteration of Tripod.com. But a crazy thing was happening — people weren’t using their product the way they had envisioned. People were more intent on building their own web pages with the resume builder.

Damn these people!

Bo and company had a choice to make; either stick to their origin vision or evolve to support the needs and desires of their members, moving Tripod towards focusing on homepage building tools.

They made the only choice they could.

In 1997, before revenue models other than advertising came to fruition, stickiness determined the value of most companies. Bo and Dick saw the synthesis of member desires and a business opportunity, usefulness and viability.

It was a no brainer.

The Lycos Years

By the time I came on board, Bob Davis had just scooped up Tripod and Bo was serving his commitment to Lycos, wandering the halls at odd hours.

“Corporate refocus” was quickening its pace.

The first driver I encountered was the order to cut out community all together and focus solely on developing a suite of personal publishing tools. Actually, that became the name of our group within the Lycos domain: Personal Publishing.

The move ostracized many of the original Tripod folk who had joined the company because of the possibilities of online community, as well as a bunch of members that chose Tripod for similar reasons. But the numbers proved that people wanted to build their own web sites, so the machine spit out its orders and rolled on.

My first project was to visualize the current experience in a tangible format, so we could determine where we were going to snip and cut sections and features. After putting together a precise map of page sequencing and explicit sections, I walked into the office of my design director (former Tripod lead designer, Dave Reid) to get his opinion. The direction given to him was crystal clear, so he studied my map for a few seconds, found where the “build” and “community” sections bordered one another, and proceeded to literally rip the map in half on that line.

No questions asked; no questions necessary. That was how the Death Star operated.

It took me about a year into my stint at Tripod/Lycos to really start to question the direction of the group. I mean, the projects I was being assigned to were superfluous at best, such as creating Hello Kitty skins for the Angelfire publishing tool UI.

It felt like the powers-that-be had run out of useful ideas, so they just wanted their paid bodies in motion, any motion, as long as we were being productive.

That’s when I began wondering what would’ve happened at Tripod if they hadn’t been sold to Lycos; if the smart people were still “in charge,” still listening to their members, still innovating based on where they came from and an evolving vision of where to go.

Maybe Technorati would be serving the world of “Tripoders” today, rather than “Bloggers”…

As things would have it, Lycos closed up the Silicon Village web factory to prepare for the Terra merger. I wanted no part of working inside of the Death Star in Waltham, Mass, so I moved down to Brooklyn and picked up a dotcom consulting gig.

It wasn’t the best move, but it was better than Hello Kitty.

Jeff Veen’s post the other day regarding the genesis of flickr placed me in this Silicon Village time capsule. His description of their roots reminded me about choices and their consequences — good, bad or indifferent.

There’s no “right way” to create a viable, useful product; no methodology that is absolutely sound or fool proof. The best you can hope for — as Bo so eloquently points out in Lucky or Smart?– is that if you subjugate your ego often enough, and live your life accordingly, options will be presented to you in a manner that you can act upon with intelligence, vigor and respect.

That advise should be the first amendment for both creating useful products and collaborating with smart people, as in both cases, consistently relying on ones self-referential perspective is rarely ever a spot on decision.

Viva la flickr! Viva la Tripod! No game, no resume… no problem.

Alright, I admit it. I didn’t get out (or online) much while I worked for Ameritrade. 60 hour work weeks for two straight years while building a design practice and a forward-thinking trading platform will do that to your peripheral vision. Well, I’m making up for lost time, slowing down to explore the web… big time.

• Flickr is sooo good
• My teeth are stuck in del.icio.us
• I’m blown away by the approach and possibilities of Technorati

The IA in me is smiling. No, not for the sheer joy of seeing community indexing, the IA in me is smiling because it’s becoming clear to me where the web is heading, and it’s not following a topical, structured, media-filtered path.

Take Technorati. The approach is like a Bizarro perspective of the mainstream media.

Now, Technorati isn’t dumb, ugly or inhumane as in the illustration below, but it is backwards when looking at it through the typical political/news media lens of corporate America.

I mean, the mainstream media reports news by using explicit filters to ensure that what is published or broadcasted supports the primary objectives of capitalism. In the past, I’ve ranted about the much needed expansion of the Google and Yahoo! news model to place blogs into the mix when drawing from indexed sources. Well, Technorati flipped the model entirely with an approach to sharing information that spits in the eye of mainstream media constructs, creating a communal approach to digesting information. There are no "vanilla" labels of a topical navigation, splitting the world into simplified categories and driving a pre-conceived notion of "valuable" content into the skulls of society.

Technorati leverages tagging to present contextual concepts of information back to the user based on our desires.

Run a tag search on "free speech" and you get a descriptive page of the latest blog entries, Flickr images and a contextual list of social bookmarks which include mainstream media articles (based on del.icio.us and Furl tagging). It took me a few returns to stumble upon the revolutionary aspect of this approach. I mean, three months ago, I would’ve been happy if Google News simply added a column of contextual links of blog post that corresponded to a search query. Technorati has flipped the script and placed the hierarchy crown on the head of bloggers, reducing the "real" media to a column of "see also’s."

I love it.

So where can this go? Can this approach sustain a movement towards fundamentally altering how American society is exposed to, finds and digests information? Man, "it depends" is such an understatement.

• If Technorati can reach a tipping point, similar to Google a few years back, where, say, Tony Soprano is shown "Technorating" waste management on his computer, the impact on society could be huge. People will start to look for information from other people (sans an editorial slant)
• If Technorati partners with a Google or a Yahoo! to provide user-generated content within their results pages, society will begin to experience contextual alternatives to mainstream reporting, entertainment, et al without being forced to have to go search for it through RSS and other technical means.
• If Technorati is bought by a Google or a Yahoo!, all bets are off. Only time would tell if Chomsky’s "propaganda model" proves itself to be a truism or if new media and it’s superstars are exceptions to the rule.

No matter what, it’s obvious that the web’s semantic synapses are continuing to form. This is only the beginning.

Every time this commercial airs, I want to kick in my television.

It’s driving me absolutely crazy. This is a perfect example of what’s wrong with America, or better put, how corporate America brainwashes our population. Instead of me describing the spot, take a look at the storyboard and the spot itself.

How blatant is this messaging? The guy uses a university branded card to help him get through college, a business card for his first job, an Amazon card "scores" his girlfriend and bridges him over to his wife on a honeymoon with a Continental card. As he places his wife on the bed, she turns into their baby and a Disney card slips into his wallet. The spot ends with him fishing with the grandkids, as an AARP card falls into place.

On top of it all, that guy from Five for Fighting drops a ridiculously pathetic verse to coat Americana over the presentation:

I’m twenty-two for a moment
And she feels better than ever
And we’re on fire
Making our way back from Mars
I’m thirty-three for a moment
I’m still the man, but you see I’m a they
A kid on the way
A family on my mind
Half time goes by
Suddenly you’re wise
Another blink of an eye
Sixty-seven is gone
The sun is getting high
We’re moving on…

So, why do you think this country is so deep in debt, with the average citizen carrying $26,000 on their shoulders. Why do you think the West is perceived as materialistic and a bastion against anything indigenous?

Big corporations, banks and government have been running this game for years, and it doesn’t stop at our borders. As the stakes are raised internationally, credit cards and advertising are replaced by economic hitmen, driving up costs for foreign governments to modernize infrastructure in our never ending search for natural resources and empire building. We know that, say, a Venezuela can’t pay us (oops, I mean the World Bank) back, so once we (oops, I mean global contractors like Haliburton) entrench them in debt, we trade debt relief for a gun to the political forehead of each country. It’s simply corporate growth at any cost:

• The American citizen’s natural resources = hard earned money; once stolen, it adds to corporate and banking wealth, while reducing our ability to choose our own
  "productive" paths to fit our personal needs
• Foreign natural resources = sovereign earth resources; once stolen, it adds to
  corporate and bank wealth, reducing sovereign independence by erasing debt as a political chess piece

Did you see the Bush/Blair African debt reduction press conference the other day?

It’s all such a shell game.

up is down
left is right
it’s time to move on
time to reach for new heights
got change for a dollar?
how about a match for my five?
sense
it’s a common drive
to pass on the right
and look to the left
riding a broad shoulder
trouble cleft
bassline theft
deft movements abound
around the town goes the sound
of a pound
of flesh
of blood
brothers switch up
retake the fight
retake the plight
retake the might
y
problemas del hombre comun
the time is soon
a half past June
three months in on the out
i hold my breath in order to shout!…

carolina

Designers are held to such a double-standard, especially designers of the interactive media.

The stereotype of a designer is that he or she is, more likely than not, self-referential with their work. Business cringes when faced with the prospect of bringing in a new designer to a product team, as visions of a self-glorified, controlling, pompous designer wandering the halls, makes business and technology folks toss and turn in bed at night. I mean, come on, all designers are "shiny-shiny" types, looking for that Golden Pencil or Webby Award, right?

Business folks talk about wanting designers who have a rationale before, say, changing the paradigm of interface behavioral patterns or suggesting a different approach to the usefulness of the experience in the first place. Business wants a designer who has a process which substantiates their output; a smart, talented, non self-referential designer, able to take their domain (the business) into account when designing interfaces.

Okay. Fair enough.

So designers expose their craft, expose their thought processes, expose their methodologies to businesses and product teams in order to show that they get it. Seasoned designers are able to have a conversation about a business model; they can talk shop with engineers; they can subjugate their own system design preferences in order to understand the needs of the end user and the possibilities that lie beyond the present implementation model. The aforementioned approaches aren’t options to the craft; these are the multi-disciplinary skill sets required for the role.

Well, in steps technology with skin in the game to spare. “Innovation comes from rapid iterations of features” they say. “Okay” the designer adds, “Let’s just make sure we’re focusing on the right features, useful to people.” Instantly, product management begins to cringe, project managers start to steel up, cats sleep with dogs, etc.

Remember that the intent of crafting an interface is to create a representational model that reflects, as close as possible, the end user’s mental model regarding the goal and tasks at hand, not as an implementation model of the existing technology. So why is this method of getting to the interface so scary? Why is it so terrible to actually talk to “outside” people about product concepts? Designers create user archetype(s) and scenarios to represent the potential user base and their needs and desires in a product. If the synthesized findings confirm internal product vision, they can then be translated by the design team to craft interface behavior. This is how refined, holistic user interfaces are created across a single product, an entire domain and even into external product and brand communication. This is a cross-team, collaborative process which may or may not fine-tune the product offering, but definitely will improve the behavior of the user interface.

So is the hesitation from the fear of leaks to competition? There are ways to perform research without letting on who you are and even the concept of the actual product. And it can be done rather quickly. Or does the hesitation stem from a more human place; personal competition and the perceived loss of skin in the game?

If my non-designer colleagues in this field believe that user experience design begins and ends at the interface level, where it gets pretty, then I guess I understand the hesitation to leverage our methods. Maybe us design types should “just get drunk and throw paint on the canvas.”

Personally, I’m going to stick to my seltzer and keep asking questions.