A Tree Falls in the Woods -- a model of creativity

I am sometimes surprised by peoples notions of what it means to be creative. Many years ago I did quite a bit of research on approaches for identifying or defining authenticity and creativity. I used three models that I like a lot -- one was a model that I developed based on genetic evolution, the second was a model I adapted from Jungian psychology and the third was this from Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi's book on creativity...

 

While I found value in all three models I ended up using the model that I adapted from genetic evolution. Looking back on it now I think I would need to change it just a little bit as I think the trajectory is probably not so straight forward. But being lazy I'm just going post what I had at the time...

 

I don't feel that I ever fully developed the model that I attempted to adapt from Jungian psychology. I used ideas from Jung's model of archetypes. Looking back on my files from that period of my life it just looks like a big mess now. So, I won't share it here. But, perhaps I will revisit it someday.  

Even though my obsession with the evolutionary model persists, I still like the Csikszentmihalyi model quite a bit. Reading a new article today "Examining Types of Knowledge Claims Made in Design Research" by my friend Jordan Beck and Erik Stolterman reminded my of that model... I think that a "knowledge claim" might be viewed as a form of creativity and so I post :)   In fact I re-made the model today as I was inspired by Beck's article.

If a tree falls in the woods and no one is allowed to witness it -- does it make a sound? You are the tree. If you don't at least attempt to share the insights from your research... are they really insights? You yourself may know that they are valuable insights and that is all fine and good. But, if you take them with you to the grave then the good that you have done is limited. Some people I respect do "research" through the things that they create. They make beautiful and/or compelling artifacts. They share those artifacts with the world. But, they never share with the rest of us the things that they learned along the way. I honestly feel a little robbed because of that. I think that the Csikszentmihalyi's model hints at the idea that there is value in sharing your idea, innovation or creativity.

 

Systems, Perspectives and Maps

When you look at a system
the perspective you examine it from
can make all the difference.

Below are 3 maps.
They all are essentially made up of the same set of "nodes."

But the meaning is radically different for each one
due to a simple shift of perspective...

Changes to the structure of a map can shift the meaning of the map...

 

 Changes to the structure of the map can help us to understand the system in different ways...

 

maps from "Learning How to Learn" -- Novak J.D., Gowin D.B.

What all of this means from a design perspective is important. Often we map a system from only one perspective. If we think about the system in a more elastic way we can generate insights that we might otherwise miss entirely. Including someone on your design team who thinks visually and is a systems-thinker can push this exercise in ever more interesting directions.  See the maps and models of the Dubberly Design Office.

What if there is no "thing?"

What if...?

What if we completely let go of the idea that we are designing some "thing?"

What if we imagined instead that we were designing some future state of being for the humans that we are designing for?

What would that state of being be?

What are the qualities and characteristics of that state of being?

What are the qualities and characteristics of that experience?

What are the qualities and characteristics of the objectives we are aiming for within that experience?

Re-ask those same questions about the humans that we are designing for.

Re-ask those same questions about the contexts that we are designing for.

Then... after we've applied our "methods," "approaches," "frameworks", etc to all of those (many times over) then maybe, just maybe, we can begin to imagine the "thing."

I think I can... I think I can imagine what that would be like.

Now... if I could only get my students to do the same.

What if...?

Reflect - Contemplate - Discuss - Design - Repeat

Computer Monkeys of the Future (or not... hopefully)

A couple of months ago I wrote the following but never posted it...
 

"These past seven days have run the gammut — from wonderful conversations with amazing game designers to a faculty colleague insinuating that people do not want or need the classes that I create/teach. Today I sit here reflecting on the latter half of that arc. My writing these words is perhaps a way for me to purge myself of the negative thoughts I've been having. In this tiny dark corner of the digital I feel safe to write these words. More than ever I am filled with self doubt. Maybe I have been going down a wrong path. Maybe graphic design does not need to concern itself with any of the things that I have spent the last 8 years pursuing. If that is true than it's time for me to come to grips and pull the plug. I will concede that graphic designers do concern themselves with notions of user-experience, interaction, systems-level and human-centered design. But, do they do these things well enough? If so then why should I concern myself with any notions of change?

Not long ago I told a friend that I would be happy teaching design the same way that I was taught design 20 years ago. I had a great experience in my undergraduate education. I would be happy to go back to that model. So, why have I felt compelled to do anything differently? Return to your roots. All is well. Let's make things that look great, things that seem like they will solve a problem."

I have been reflecting on these words since I wrote them.  But, things have grown more complicated since then. I have been researching the future of "graphic design" and -- there is no easy way to say this -- it doesn't look great. The US Bureau of Labor and Statistics estimates that the job market in "graphic design" will essentially be stagnant for the next eight years -- 1% growth. This makes me sad but also very curious.

It appears that other areas of design potentially face a much brighter future. UX and IXd in particular seem to be faced with a very bright future. It seems that I may be on to something with the concepts that I teach in my classes. I have been weaving thick threads of user-research and other IX/UX design notions into my graphic design classes. It has been challenging because both students and some of my faculty colleagues are resistant to the idea that graphic design education needs to change.

It is true that thin threads of IX/UX ideas have been used in some areas of graphic design for decades. But, these threads have been weak, inconsistent and have rarely used the same vocabulary as IX/UX. Increasingly I believe that we as graphic designers and design educators must adapt or face a strange and in my opinion undesirable future. That future is one where graphic designers are brought onto projects toward the very end of development and tasked with creating visual designs based on pre-established specifications -- i.e. graphic designers become computer monkeys.

My vision of the future is much different. It is a future where graphic designers understand and use IX/UX methods and are valuable team members that are brought onto projects before they even begin. It is a future where visual design becomes central to every step in the progress of a project. It means that graphic designers must understand user-research and how to use visual design to make that research better. Preparing students to do that type of work requires a paradigm shift. It means holding off on the design of the grail and beginning with designing the tools (i.e. visual research) that will be used to craft the grail.

It's Not About the Games

I have had on numerous occasions over the past three years people make suggestions or recommendations for me -- suggestions and recommendations that assume I want to teach or pursue game design. I want to be clear -- I have no such desires. It's true that I have a deep interest in the design of tabletop games and yes I have dabbled in designing such things. But, my interest in board game design lies in what other types of designers can learn from the concepts, methods and outcomes inherent in the design of tabletop games.

I believe very strongly that the concepts, methods and outcomes found in board game design can be powerful, powerful tools for designing almost anything. Furthermore, when used in the classroom, board game design can be an extremely effective, efficient and enjoyable means of teaching students (of all design disciplines) principles that will make them better designers. In the five different courses that I have developed and/or taught over the last three years I have used board game design in only one of them. Board game design principles could be extremely useful at any level of education. But, I strategically use game design in the 200 level course that I teach. I believe that the game design principles that I can leverage in the classroom are foundational. So, while those principles can be powerful at all levels it is best to introduce them at an early level in a design students education.

Grail Syndrome

 or Why I am a "Process" Guy

There is in graphic design (and other design disciplines) a tendency to fixate on the "thing" -- the artifact, the whatsit, the object that we believe will be the end of our design process. It can be a blinding obsession that can result in premature design-ation. The "thing" is our sirens on the cliffs, the big red shiny button, the beautiful glowing destination that calls to us like the bug to the zapper, it is our holy grail. It's difficult for me to describe in mere words the overwhelming power that the grail has over us as designers. I have begun calling this obsession the "grail syndrome." This syndrome is real and pervasive. It can result in designers falling in love with early ideas and clinging to them until the bitter end even though those ideas may be bad ones. The syndrome can result in designs that ignore any other number of  problems that should be addressed in order to generate effective, enjoyable and efficient designs.

For designers who don't understand the extreme importance of the context-of-use or the humans-we-design-for or the goals we are trying to help those humans reach, the call of the grail often ends badly. We must understand not just the grail itself. We must strive for a deep understand of it... in context... with humans... and goals. This "grail" is the literal object of our design efforts and it is often referred to in design as the form. Present day forms are rapidly evolving and accelerating in complexity. In the last twenty years we have experienced a radical shift in the types of designs that people interact with. We have moved from relatively static designs like printed catalogs to kinetic experiences like websites and mobile technologies. It is difficult to keep up with changes of this magnitude that are happening at such a rapid pace. And more importantly it is increasingly difficult to predict what we will be faced with fifteen, ten or even five years from now.

Teaching design in such a world is very exciting. It's tempting to spend most of ones time teaching students how to deal with forms that are currently in use. To some degree it is necessary to do this. But, I feel that too much emphasis on this is time misspent. Unlike the scale and speed of the evolution of form, the evolution of "design process" has been much slower. We frame, we ideate, we empathize, we iterate, we test -- these are things that designers have been doing for generations.  An emphasis on "design process" encourages students to understand design in terms of systems, humans, contexts and goals. These are concepts that don't change much over time and as design educators these are where we should be spending most of our efforts. We can prepare students for the rapid evolution of forms by teaching these concepts along with strategies for dealing with complexity (but, complexity is probably a topic best left for future post).

Design Prototype Fidelity Addendum

Last week I wrote a post about the fidelity level of design prototypes. This topic has been on my mind for some time. Shortly after making last weeks post I created another graph that I think is noteworthy. Much like last weeks graph/post I have no quantitative research to back this up. I have been studying design and designers for a couple of decades now and these two posts reflect my personal experiences. Today's graph reflects how an experienced designer might create prototypes of increasingly high fidelity as a design project progress from its early stages to it later/final(?)/ship state. As with last weeks post this progression may depend on the type of design project that a designer might be working on and the client that the designer is working with. Sometimes it might be appropriate to create prototypes at a very high level of fidelity much earlier in the design process. So, these graphs are intended as rough "rule of thumb" models.

Design Prototype Fidelity as an Affordance for Change

I'm working on a paper that discusses low-fidelity, rapid prototyping for user-experience design. I have an interest in paper prototyping — why it's useful and important. Low-fidelity, rapid prototyping is any quick, rough way of approximating how a design will look and/or function. This is often done just with paper and markers. But it may be done with other common materials that might be found around the office -- paper, markers, tape, glue, rubber-bands, paper-clips, etc.

I also have an interest in affordances. An affordance is "a property in which the physical (or arguably visual) characteristics of an object or environment influence function." For example when you see a large wooden rectangle embedded in a wall and there is a metal knob at waist height on that rectangle -- you assume that's a door. You can assume that by twisting and pulling the knob you can open the "door." A door knob is an affordance that indicates there are certain things you can do.

So it occurred to me today that these two interests work well together. Of course it is one of those seemingly obvious connections.

We do pencil sketches on paper because they are easy to change and easy to change quickly. The low-fidelity of the materials of pencil and paper afford us the ability to change our sketches. As the fidelity of a prototype becomes higher it becomes increasingly difficult to change. A low-fidelity prototype of an iPhone app may be done with several post-it notes stuck to the screen of the phone. Drawn on the post-it notes are a series of screens that represent how the app looks and functions. Peeling off one post-it note after another gives an approximate experience for using the app. Changes to such a prototype can be done in seconds. As the prototype is slowly evolved by the designer the prototyping moves from pencil on paper to digital wireframes and beyond. As the prototypes increase in fidelity it becomes increasingly difficult and time consuming to make changes.

There is enormous value in using low-fidelity prototyping in the early stages of a design project. The low-fidelity of the prototype affords the designer the ability to make changes easily, quickly and very inexpensively. The fidelity level of a prototype acts as an affordance -- low-fidelity acts as an affordance for a high degree of changeability and high-fidelity acts as an affordance for a low degree of changeability.

Metaphorical Gestures -- Designing for a new tomorrow

"Everyone can – and does – design. We all design when we plan for something new to happen..."
-- Cross, Nigel. Design Thinking: Understanding How Designers Think and Work (p. 3).

Here I am again beating the same old drum... but, I can't help myself. I believe very deeply if we align ourselves with notions of human-centered design or even human-computer interaction design that we must find our way to a deeper understanding of the people that our design is intended for. Crazy right?! There are of course many ways of accomplishing this. It so happens that my preferred route is through methods that have their roots in cultural anthropology. Many approaches from this discipline include some form of participant observation. That means spending time with the people you are trying to understand -- interviewing them, working with them, having conversations with them, etc. Many anthropologists spend years doing this with a single community.

Now imagine how this might be done most effectively, efficiently and enjoyably.

The Don't s
If you are studying a group of people whose beliefs you do not share what are some things you should avoid doing? Here is a short list of a few things you may want to avoid doing...

• - speak down to them
• - label them with derogatory words
• - treat them with disrespect
• - make them feel unnecessarily uncomfortable
• - do or say things that will make them feel less human
• - patronize them 
• - pound them with facts or comments trying to disprove their beliefs

The Do s
As you might imagine a list of do s would pretty much be the opposite of the list of don't s

• - speak to people as equals
• - don't label them at all but if you do try to use positive labels
• - treat them with respect
• - try to create a comfortable environment for your relationship
• - make them feel that they have great potential
• - be humble
• - find common ground and build from that

Let me just say that I believe that these are principles of a effective, efficient and enjoyable design process. It just so happens that much of what we do as humans is in fact design.

"...we plan for something new to happen, whether that might be a new version of a recipe, a new arrangement of the living room furniture, or a new layout of a personal web page. The evidence from different cultures around the world, and from designs created by children as well as by adults, suggests that everyone is capable of designing. So design thinking is something inherent within human cognition; it is a key part of what makes us human."
Cross, Nigel. Design Thinking: Understanding How Designers Think and Work (p. 3).

If you want to design something with an eye towards improving the future then you may have to change your approach. I propose that if you want to create something that will improve the future environment of some group of people (or perhaps just make it more tolerable or more interesting) then you may be well advised to carefully consider how you interact with them.

My design work of late has been to study designers -- my intent being to write, create or design papers or visual schemas that will improve understandings of how they work. When I spend time with the designers that I study I try to practice the do s and don't s that I have listed above.

What are you trying to design? How are you trying to change the future? Who are the people you are working for/with on those projects? Are you acting with them in ways that are productive and  unifying or are you acting in ways that may be counter-productive and divisive?

It's good practice to contemplate what you are planning to do and to reflect on what you have been doing. Write down or record in some way these contemplations and reflections. Always be trying to evolve the way that you work.

There may be readers here who are reading things of a political nature into this post. I'm ok with that. But, please understand I believe deeply that much of what we try to do as human beings are really forms of design. This is just who I am. If you read into this post some ulterior motive then ... well ... oh well. One of my primary missions in life is to help designers to better understand what they do and as a hopeful result improve their design thinking, doing and making. If we are all designers and if much of what we do in life is design then yes these ideas may be applicable to many of the things that humans do... including politically oriented efforts.

Board Game Prototype as Cultural Probe — Research Through Design

"Creative Differences" -- a board game design that I am working on, being tested a protospiel.

Bill Gaver and Tony Dunne developed a research method called a "cultural probe." For Gaver and Dunne the purpose of this method is to explore the context for a yet-to-be-defined design. A cultural probe is a designed object or designed kit of objects with a set of instructions that is given to members of a community (or subjects). A cultural probe may be something like a camera or notebook that the subjects use to record certain aspects of their lives. Subjects use the cultural probe and then return it to the designer who then uses it to gain insights that they might be able to use for a new design.

Cultural probes have been on my mind a lot lately. Not too long ago I attended a "protospiel" — i.e. a collaborative design workshop for board game designers. I had the opportunity to run playtests for a friend's game. It was a great experience and gave me a chance to, from a different perspective, see designers work. I took a lot of photographs, audio recordings and some video clips.

It occurred to me that it might be possible to use a board game as a sort of cultural probe. For example I could design a board game, bring it to a protospiel and have other designers collaborate to help me with the design. In fact I've already done this. But what didn't occur to me at the time is that I could do this — taking notes, photos or video and essentially use the board game as a sort of cultural probe. In some aspects it would of course not be a probe in the ways envisioned by Gaver and Dunne. But, it's an idea inspired by their work and I think it might be an interesting twist that could be useful for my research.

Can a board game be used as a type of cultural probe? Would I need to design the game in any particular way or could it be almost any design? Are there things I could learn about designers by observing them as I playtest a game designed as a cultural probe? To some extent I have already been doing this. But, I haven't done it with any intent explicit to this notion of "board game as cultural probe." I'm not sure where I will go with this or if I will use this idea. But, I feel excited about the possibilities. In this instance the probe could be a means of examining many aspects of collaborative design.

Board Games, The Breville Tea Maker, and Activity Theory

I am teaching an intensive 6 week summer course at IU focused on "human-center design." As usual I have been using board game design as a vehicle to teach many of the concepts in the course. I love teaching in part because it helps me to clarify and evolve many aspects of my personal design ideas or philosophy.

Based on fieldsite studies that the students have been conducting I have had them generating explicit...

1) Insights,
2) Problem Statement, and
3) Game Idea

Their insights were drawn from their field-studies and their analysis of several boardgames using semiotics, visual gestalt theory and systems thinking.

Their problem statements (a single sentence in the form of a question) identified a design opportunity. The statement included a specific...

a) group of people,
b) context of use,
c) designed artifact (in this case a tabeltop game), and
d) "goal"

Their game idea was a simple, short description of the game they had in mind. This should include the goal(s) of the game.

This past week we reviewed their second iterations on numbers 1-2 and their first iteration on number 3. I had another one of those moments where my own gears were turning as much or more than my students.

You see there are really two primary types of goals that need to be considered when working on a new design. First, there is the goal that is in a way external to the design — i.e. "I want the users to have this very specific type of experience" or "I want the experience of the design to affect them in this very specific kind of way." Second, there is the goal that is internal to the design — i.e. "the specific goal or end condition for using the design." It became very clear to me that it is useful for the external goal to be defined in the problem statement and the internal goal to be described in the game idea statement.

In class these two types of goals were related to the game designs that the students were working on. But, these two categories of goals really drive most good design. For example I have a tea maker that I use every day and it seems to me that there is clearly this external type of goal and internal type of goal. The external goal is that the design just makes my mornings very pleasant and eliminates the hassle usually involved in making my morning tea. The internal goal is simply to make a very good pot of tea.

It became clear to me during/after the in-class discussion that I could clarify much of what needed to be addressed with these three things (insights, problem statement and game idea) by referring back to concepts that I presented earlier in the course that come from activity theory (see diagram below). In the framework of activity theory there is a "subject" (this is a person or group of people). The subject uses a "tool" (some type of design). The tool is used on an "object" (or to achieve and objective). By achieving the objective (or perhaps in the case of games -- attempting to achieve) there is an "outcome."

In the context of activity theory we can think of the "internal" goal as the "object(ive)" and the "external" goal as the "outcome." Applying this to a game design — the goal within the game is the "object" and the experience you want the players to have is the "outcome." For me this all seems useful for any type of design work. If we add the remaining framework of activity theory — "rules," "community," and "division of labor" — it becomes even more useful. This framework becomes mobilized and we can begin to better understand small portions of the system we are designing even more deeply if we include the "actions" and "operations" concepts from activity theory. But that is perhaps better left for some future post.

I believe it cannot be stated strongly enough that spending significant attention to writing these down on paper is extremely valuable. Having even a short written statement that includes a set of insights, a problem statement (with the 4 elements I listed above), and the game/design idea can be a powerful and useful engine to drive design work. It is my belief that including a clear object(ive) in the design idea and an explicit outcome in the problem statement can bring a great clarity to a designers process and result in better, more compelling designs.

Design is Everything is Design

I have written many posts for this blog that I have never published. In some cases this has been because I felt that they were too rough and unfinished to provide any clarity whatsoever. In other cases they just felt too personal. This is a post that I wrote/created in late August 2015. For reasons that even I am not sure of I'm publishing it now   :-/   ... 

 

My fascination with design process runs deep. 

I recently received a rejection for a paper I have been working on for quite some time. I worked on it with a Professor here at IU for several months. But, quite honestly it is something I have been working on personally (and usually in the back ground of everything I do) for many years. The rejection didn't surprise me even though I feel like it is a good paper.

I see design process as a very close relative of evolutionary biology. 

We received some good feedback from the reviewers who thought the ideas the paper put forth were very interesting and worth pursuing. There were two reviewers and each of them wrote a full page of comments and concerns — this type/length of response indicates a sincere interest in the work. So, now we put it aside for a bit and move forward.

Ideas evolve.  

As I mentioned the topic of this paper has haunted me and my thoughts for many years. So, the chance it will ever go away are slim to none. I will return to "the paper" one day, probably very soon.

Humans are central to this process.

Last week I was in a meeting with three of my colleagues. We have these meetings once a week or so and they are our chance to hang out and discuss what we are working on and also to vent a little. It's our once a week catharsis. This week I had a chance to talk about this paper and it's rejection. It turned into an hour long discussion about it — very encouraging. I struggle to feel as though I fit with academics. They often ask me questions that are framed in such a way that I find it difficult to respond. 

Humans are both carriers and engineers of ideas.

I fear that I don't think like a researcher — at least not an "Informatics," "HCI," or academic researcher. When asked what my "findings" are or what my "contribution" is for this (or any) paper I honestly feel like I don't have any. Sure I wrote some stuff that came under those headings. 

We embed ideas in the things that we create and those things pass ideas on to other humans. 

But, the things I wrote feel to me like things that are just my own crazy ideas even though they are supported with interviews, participant-observation and other papers. Furthermore, these ideas seem to me quite obvious and they have been written about by others (albeit in different ways than my own).

Along the way those ideas mutate.

I look back on all of this now more convinced than ever that everything is in some way a design process. I designed a paper. Reviewers reject it and offer me feedback. I talk with my colleagues and they provide further feedback and a nice dose of encouragement. Soon I will return to the paper and redesign it and the process will begin again. In some ways this is what the paper was about.

  

This mutation can be a result of environmental factors and/or filters in our way of thinking... or... 

as humans/designers we can forcibly mutate an idea. 

This last statement, if it is true, is extremely powerful. 

If it's not true — then maybe we are just exactly like every other animal on the planet — (pre)programed by our experience, environment and genetics to do everything we do. 

If it's not true — then we have no agency and that would devastate me.

... 

Why I Love Euro-Games and Resist Modernism

"Cuba" — design by Michael Rieneck and Stefan Stadler with art by Michael Menzel

A brief intro here about who I am as a gamer. It's no secret — I play a ton-o-games. Indeed I average about 6 games a week. These days about 3 of the games that I play every month are new to me and I am almost always the one to learn and teach a new game. Most of the games I play are what are commonly described as "euro-games" and most of them are 90-120 minutes in length. On the weight scale the games that I tend to gravitate towards are medium to heavy.

I love boardgames. But, it's not purely recreation for me. I am an academic/researcher who studies board game designers — their processes, methods and culture. An integral part of this is of course studying the games themselves. Other, related and relevant interests of mine are systems and complexity. I teach college courses in design and I often tell students that the old reductivist tenant of modernism to simplify must be re-thought. We are living in a world of rapidly accelerating complexity. Stripping designs down purely because we want to simplify them is no longer a desirable strategy. Instead I say let's embrace complexity and as designers try to bring clarity rather than simplification to our designs.

So, what does this have to do with boardgames and why they are important? Well... a lot! Complex euro-games in particular relate to these ideas of mine as I believe that they are a powerful precedent that designers can learn from. They excel at embodying extremely complex systems of interaction and at doing so with great clarity. A good game designer can strip away the clutter and streamline game mechanisms while still maintaining a strong theme in their game. This is one of the hallmarks of a good euro-game. This is in part the why and how of their ability to make their games language independent. It is also why I am drawn to euro-games — extreme complexity with amazing clarity. The design objectives of — few if any rules exceptions and a low threshold for extraneous in-game text act to drive the complexity/clarity dogma even deeper into the design of these types of games.

It's worth noting that many games that do this well may not be considered strictly as "euro-games." Many people may not consider games designed by Martin Wallace to fit neatly into the euro-game category. And yet they maintain many of the characteristics I have described here. So, while I will ever be drawn to "euro-games" for the reasons I have described here I am not an exclusive a devotee. Rather they provide a base of operations for me to explore the world of complex/clarity that I find so compelling in contemporary boardgames.

Co-Hosting "Rahdo Runs Through" with Richard Ham

Last Friday I had the opportunity to co-host the "Final Thoughts" segment on "Rahdo Runs Through" with Richard Ham. It was a lot of fun and I thoroughly enjoyed talking with Richard about board games and other related stuff (much of our conversation -- i.e. before and after the "Final Thoughts" -- is not in the YouTube video). Watching this video now it's interesting to note how little I have to say. In hindsight I wonder if this is because I am so accustom to conducting ethnographic research/interviews where my objective is really to prompt others to talk about things.  I'm not sure this is the case in this video — Richard is really a ball of energy and it's doesn't take much to get him talking about game stuff.

On a related note I feel compelled to comment on what a great community board game people are (be they designers, publishers, reviewers, etc). Having been involved the way that I have been for the last 3 years it still amazes me. I have reached out to people that I only thought I could dream of talking with and almost without exception they have been open and enthusiastic to talk with me. This has made me feel welcome and has allowed to me interview dozens and dozens of designers, publishers and other people in the board game community from all over the world.  The list of people I've been able to talk with constantly amazes me. It may come as no surprise that these people are some of the smartest and most interesting people I have ever had the pleasure of associating with. And Richard has been no exception. I actually interviewed him a couple of years ago (though he didn't remember it) and when I contacted him he was more than happy to take time out of his busy schedule to and chat with me. I am a bit anti-social, a bit of an introvert. So, having my subjects of research be so welcoming has been an enormous blessing.

Visual Ethnography — Digital Experiences and Orientalism

http://mediatedcultures.net/videos/falling-up-genre-busting-digital-ethnography/

A friend of mine posted a link on Facebook some time ago and it has ever since been on my mind.

Steven J. Bernstein once wrote, 
"I like to think when something disturbs me - that - it - is - important."

Initially, I would not have characterized the link as one that "disturbs" me. But, over time and upon reflection it has caused me some serious contemplation. Something about it bugs me — i.e. evidently it does disturb me. Here is the link — "Falling Up" – Genre Busting Digital Ethnography  

I don't know how to write/right this so... I will write... 

My initial reaction to this blurb/video about this strange new candy referred to as digital ethnography was quite positive. But, being a designer and a researcher has warped me. I can no longer partake of such fresh delights without quickly descending into the madness of my own personal cynicism.

What is the purpose of such an ethnography?!

Does this serve the purpose that an ethnography should?!

What does new media such as this actually do when it is used as "ethnography?!"

Cultural anthropology of the past/present followed a "salvage" model where the work was intended to preserve knowledge of current cultures by generating written ethnographies and other fairly static artifacts. Photos, films and other forms of media have increasingly been wove into the works that cultural anthropologists generate. I have been experimenting with ethnographic video so my post here is aimed not just at Wesch's project but at my own work as well. Arguably -- photos, film, video and audio records can be immersive and they do present their own set of challenges. But, interactive digital experiences are less a "record" of culture. They are more of a re-creation that claims to allow the viewer/user to feel as though they are stepping into a culture. Producing and editing such a re-creation puts the anthropologist in a position to manipulate the ethnography to a much greater degree than with previous media.

New media such as video and digital artifacts could be seen as pursuing a new model aimed at providing an "experience." This new model of experience is exciting to me. Seemingly, it can provide the audience with a means to understand a culture more deeply, to feel, empathize, and... well... experience other cultures. But, does it really do this? Does it do it in a way that is true, real or productive? I'm not sure that it always does. I fear that too often it will not. And yet I feel compelled to create such ethnography. There is power in these new methods. It seems that spreading knowledge through such experiences could have such positive outcomes that it would be foolish to not make the attempt.

Still I have serious questions and reservations. Let's consider anthropological exhibits as they are often created within the context of a museum. When we put the seemingly strange object of another culture on a white pedestal and light it dramatically in a large white room what exactly is the experience for the viewers? What is the experience when we fill that room with other carefully lit objects in glass cases and on white pedestals? Does it respect the culture? Does it represent it in such a way that the viewer gets an accurate feel for the culture?

A digital virtual space seems all to similar to this type of treatment — the digital screen is a glowing, candy-like window hanging in space. In fact it seems to have even a greater potential for ill (or good?). Does such a presentation become a feast on knowledge or does it become a binge on candy? Is it a fine line that is in some ways too easy to cross? More importantly -- are we "othering" the subjects of such an ethnography? We have lived this problem before through the orientalism of the 20th century. I believe it is possible to do better if we are aware of this recent past.

So, many concerns come with creating an ethnography of this type or in this way. I will end this post with more questions that may act as provocations or perhaps guide me to make better ethnographic artifacts.

Does it treat the culture and people being studied with respect?

Does it treat the viewer/reader/user with respect?

What is the purpose of such a project?

Does it represent the culture in a way that is "real" and who is defining what "real" is?

Does it compel the audience to explore their world or does it make them just crave more candy?

                 

Small "Rules," Large Effects, and Rapid Iterations

 — more board game design observations
and how they might apply to IX/UX design

I continue to ask myself whether or not there is really any value in studying board game design. Can this path of research be adapted for improving interaction/experience (IX/UX) design skills. Can board game design teach us something that simply studying IX/UX design cannot or what can it teach us in a better way?

I will focus here on one particular area that I think is noteworthy. It's something that I have tried to incorporate into my teaching and it was tangentially the topic of my last blog post. But, I think it's worthwhile to spend a few more words on it here.

In IX/UX design (i.e. the design of digital, interactive experiences) the "rules" that the user must follow are buried in the software code. This makes it impossible for the user to break the rules and at the same time allows them to learn the rules through experiencing the design -- e.g. if I click here something happens that I like but if I click there nothing happens at all. Once a digital design has been produced (even in the form of a digital prototype) it can sometimes be difficult to change the rules. There may be truck loads of intertwined rules and in some cases the designer may not have even considered in an explicit way what the rules are or how they relate to one another and/or to the user.

Board game design forces the designer to think explicitly about the rules of the experience — if you are going to hand a board game over to someone else then those rules have to be in writing and they have to be written well. Rules need to be expressed in writing in a clear and concise way. Rule sets can be extremely complex — but, must be broken down systematically in a well structured, written document. This forces the designer to generate rules governing game play at all levels and scales — e.g. lots of very small rules are clustered together and these clusters form (or are governed by) larger or overarching rules. 

The upshot of this is that it is then relatively easy to change a single small rule to test and see the effect of that change. When tested in this way it is easy for the designers to see the effect of changing a small rule. Changing a small rule is easy but such a change can radically change the way that the design is experienced by users/players. This type of experimentation is common in the design and testing of board games because it is relatively easy to do and the pay-off can be that the game-play experience is effected in radical ways. During the test of a board game such experimentation and iteration can happen in only a few minutes. This provides the designer with very rapid feedback on small tweaks that have large effects. I have witnessed this process on many occasions in my research with board game designers.

Here are a few things that I think these elements of board game design can help IX/UX designers do better or understand more fully.

- preparing a set of written "rules" provides a way of precisely targeting small areas where changes can be made very quickly.

- a paper prototype paired with a written rule-set provides the designer with a means of testing small, highly targeted, quick iterations on a design.

- small changes can have large effects — read in Donella Meadows "Thinking in Systems" the section on leverage points.

This use of board game design tactics for IX/UX design is largely untested. And while there are more similarities than differences between these two types of design I must acknowledge that there are limitations in comparing the two. But, I continue to believe that there is great value in pursuing this path of research.

Board Games and the Future of Graphic Design in a World of Interaction

From very early in their education graphic design students must start thinking about design in terms of interaction, user-experience, and systems.   

The future of design will very likely be centered in digital spaces where these ways of thinking are crucial. I propose that board game design can be a powerful bridge to help beginning students do just that. Designing board games forces students to think in systems without requiring them to be skilled at writing code or using complex software features. Students tasked with designing a board game can use common materials like paper, markers, scissors and found objects. Using such materials students can work unconstrained to develop complex systems of interaction and user-experience.

My research for the last three years has focused on board game designers, their design processes and the artifacts that they create. These designers are often adept at rapidly prototyping complex systems that are represented in a very physical and visual form. In conjunction with this, the designer's primary effort is the creation of a set of rules outlining the behavior of the system — i.e. the function, use and experience of the physical artifact. In other words the board game designer creates a system — 

- the structure of the system is represented in the physical artifact as it is set up on the table AND

- the behavior of the system is described in the rule-set for playing the game.

These two characteristics — the structure and behavior of systems — form a comprehensive (if somewhat basic) framework for thinking, creating and working in systems.

Last semester I incorporated the design of a board game into the curriculum of my “Intro to Graphic Design” course. Students in these classes began by conducting ethnographic research to understand a particular group of people and a space that they frequent. This research was analyzed by the students using visual methodologies. This visual analysis was used to generate a problem statement that then drove the creation and testing of a board game. So, far the results of this course curriculum seem positive. I believe that this use of a visual ethnographic approach and its application in the form of creating a board game provides an accessible entry point for beginning graphic design students to begin thinking and working is ways that prepare them for the future of design.

The Meaning in the Method

This week I have been trying to write a rebuttal for a paper that Erik and I submitted for CHI. It's been a greater challenge than I had anticipated. Some things that have side tracked me are the comments from our reviewers. The paper is about developing new design methods and how that development process can or should be thought of as user-centered design (UCD). That term "user-centered design" has been a pebble in my shoe for a couple of years now. As much as I believe in UCD I also am deeply concerned that it encourages us too much to think about designs in utilitarian terms. This draws us away from deeper notions of what a design means. I believe that the formal nature of what we design, how it is interacted with, the context of its use and just about every other aspect of a design means something to those people who encounter or engage with the design.

So, when I read and contemplate the reviews of our paper the pebble in my shoe grows larger and more annoying. If a design method is designed for use by designers it seems to me that method means something and this creation of meaning is perhaps equal to or even more important than its utility.

So, how can a method mean something? Here is a very simplistic example: if we are creating and using personas as a design method this implies a number of very interesting meanings — everything about the user is important to us, we want to be able to empathize with the user, each user is unique, there is a specific type of user for any given design, etc. These are some of the possible underlying meanings for the method of creating and using personas. Perhaps not the greatest or most profound example but this is just off the top of my head. It seems to me that these meanings are even more important than the utility of the method. These are the "why" in the method.

When a new method is being developed the "why" runs even deeper. Our view of the method needs to not just address how the method addresses the needs and meanings in a designs end use but also what the use of that method means to the designer and what it says to the designer about those that developed the method. If a method is tedious, unpleasant to use, inefficient and produces inadequate results it may "mean" that those who developed the method don't really care about the designers who will use the method. A method that is developed and has these undesirable qualities may mean that the developer is more concerned with a research question or some other aspect of the method. This may be just fine depending on the context. But, I think it's something that we must be aware of.

It is increasingly my belief that our focus on "use" is degrading the "meaning" that is inherent in every design. I believe that people long for meaning and that we do them a great disservice when we as designers create things without deep consideration of what a design will mean when people experience and interact with it. And back the point of this post — new design methods should be developed, not just with "use" in mind but perhaps more importantly "meaning."

Why Board Game Design...

Should Be Taught to Graphic Design Students.

Lately I've been thinking... "What the heck am I doing here?"
You see I've been teach an intro to graphic design course here at Indiana University and I've been trying to think a little differently. My distant past is in graphic design and in the more recent past (the last 6 years) my focus has been on "interaction and user-experience design" (IX/UX design) The past couple of years I've been intensely studying board games and how they are designed. It seems to me that board game design may provided a useful bridge for graphic designers to start thinking in terms of IX/UX design. With digital spaces growing in presence, sophistication and complexity so rapidly I believe that IX/UX design is the future. I believe that this is the future of graphic design. This is not to say that good old logo design or any of the other more traditional forms of graphic design hold not value. It's simply means that these more traditional forms should be considered in the context of our rapidly evolving digital spaces. Towards that end I have been using board game design in my intro to graphic design course. I have done this not just by having them design a board game  — though that is the central project of the course and is the primary thread throughout it's entire 15 weeks. Along the way I have had students do user-research, read and discuss topics like semiotics, affordances, thinking in systems, etc. The goal has been to help them understand the importance of considering context and culture with an eye toward interaction.

So, what's so special about board game design?
Three categories to consider...

Users — without players a game is just a tabletop decoration. Furthermore it is insanely important to try to understand the people who will play the game. Over it's lifespan the context and culture that a board game inhabits is largely about the people that share the space of the game. This is true whether the game is sitting on the shelf, set up for play or being played on the table.

Rules — there must be some form of rules document and it needs to be good. Rules are the equivalent to the digital code of the game. A bad set of rules and/or a poorly designed rules document means that the game will crash. A good rules set means the game will run smoothly. This is perhaps an over simplification but I think it makes my point.

Signifiers and Affordances — the way that a game looks, it's graphic elements and physical bits mean something. As a designer you better be sure that these things mean the right things to the right people. These visual elements can go miles towards how a game feels and functions.

These three categories provide a framework of experience for the game. Each needs to work in conjunction with the others for a game to provide an acceptable experience for the players (or potential players). Each of them mirrors important considerations for interactions that are designed for our digital spaces.

Designing a board game provides students with an opportunity to use simple materials that are easily edited to create an interactive experience for users. In conjunction with a basic knowledge of form making and software -- Using paper, cardboard and other simple materials a student can rapidly prototype a game and easily make changes as problems and opportunities are discovered through playtesting.

Graphic designers need to start thinking about design in terms of interaction and user-experience. And I propose that board game design can be a powerful bridge to help them do just that.