andydidyk.com

You can say what you want about the “green” movement, which has as many political overtones as a Dixie Chick concert, but some aspects of it are great.  MountainSmith, a well-known manufacturer of outdoor gear, has recently announced the arrival of two new lumbar packs that are made from recycled plastic water bottles.  By their estimates, it sales of these products will keep approximately 1.1 million bottles out of the landfill each year, which is great news.  The sad thing is, the technology to achieve this isn’t really anything new, so I’m grateful for the political firestorm that’s yielding things like hybrid cars and recycled fabrics.  Most outdoor equipment manufacturers know that they cater to an environmentally-conscious crowd, so innovations have been abundant (and well-promoted) for years, but now utilizing such techniques can generate a very real ROI from an increasingly aware public.

Of course, I didn’t see a lumbar pack recycling program mentioned anywhere…yet =).

I always like to experience visual ways of displaying complex data when the visual displays simplify and inform. The “Death and Taxes 2008” poster is a great example of this. Would I ever take the time to try and sift through the 2008 federal budget? Heck no. But would I spend 20 minutes browsing through this interactive piece? Absolutely.  Regardless of what your position on the issues may be, this provides an at-a-glance view of where budgetary changes could be occurring (it was easy to spot things like new submarines being favored instead of housing for the elderly, for example).

This is more breakthrough that it may appear on the surface…what if government textbooks were replaced with interactive learning modules in high schools across the country?  How much could retention rates improve?

If you click on the link, you’ll be redirected to the site where you can zoom in, zoom out, etc.

I was thinking today that aside from a trackball, which is at best an awkward, ugly, and sad little  invention (sorry trackball user, if you’re still out there), the mouse really hasn’t been significantly improved since its inception. However, given the power of Google and about 10 minutes of disposable time, I found a really cool site.

While he hasn’t changed the mouse at all, a German communications student by the name of Alex Frank has dared to design an interface that removes the need for a user to click. Anything. You can navigate the entire contents of the page, submit forms, and download images all without lifting a finger (to click, that is). I strongly encourage you to check it out…and to spend at least 5 minutes getting the hang of it. After I did that, I was totally hooked (with the exception being that it was impossible to select text for copy and pasting, but hey, it’s a prototype).

In fact, I’m somewhat disappointed that I have to click “publish” now.

In case you didn’t catch the link, it’s here: http://www.dontclick.it/

This post is in response to David Armano’s post, “Thought of the Day”, in which he quotes Roger Martin, Dean of the Rotman School of Business, at the University of Toronto, saying this:

“To get more reliability (business approach), you sacrifice validity (design approach). And vice-versa.”

Wow. I have the disadvantage of taking this quote without context, but at face value I have to totally disagree Mr. Martin. I’m sure that Roger is a very intelligent and accomplished individual, but I’m not sure what his motivation is here. So somebody please correct me if I’ve got this wrong…

I think that the core of this statement is a very, very narrow definition of what design is. I know that’s the cry of our industry, right? Evidently with good reason; most people still aren’t convinced. Design isn’t pretty pictures, it’s immersion and empathy, science, statistics, usability, and communication. To me, Roger’s statement invokes sentiments of an artificial demarcation between business and design that is decades out of date and dangerously uninformed. Validity (good design), by its very nature breeds good business results. And I’m not talking about how nice something looks, I’m talking about how well it functions, which is a direct reflection of the design.

Good design has to be fueled by clear business objectives, a thorough understanding and empathy of the audience, and skillful problem solving. It’s a result of teamwork between businesspeople and designers, not competition as Roger implies. I’d love to hear feedback on what others think.

–> Clarification: David was able to offer me this context:

Hi Andy,

I read your post and I do think this may be a case of not having the context. The essance of Roger’s message was that designers speak the language of validation while business speaks the language of reliability. This causes friction and miscommunication though there are shared goals. He stresses that each camp needs to learn the language of the other and get closer to a 50/50 mix of reliability + validity. His point being that this balance leads to both good design and business.