Results

On Tuesday, we took everyone in the office for a special excursion, to an event being hosted by the Registered Graphic Designers (RGD) of Ontario. The event was dubbed:

Designing User Experiences

The primary reason for attending the event was to see Blair Enns. We follow his writings quite closely, and if you are unfamiliar with him and what he does, then take the time to check out his site:

Win Without Pitching

Blair’s business is in consulting with creative/interactive agencies to optimize their business performance. His presentations are brilliant, and expose the key issues that cause most agencies big and small to struggle in the marketplace. His perspectives are truly sobering, and his work could be perceived as the “37 Signals – Getting Real” of the business side of running an agency.

We have seen Blair speak before in Chicago at a conference called Mind Your own Business. We knew what the audience was in for, and were very excited that a speaker of this caliber was invited to this intimate event.

I was quite surprised at the attendance of perhaps 30 people. We came across the event via Blair’s website, but had not heard of the event otherwise. It was poorly advertised, and it’s a shame, because I bet many people in the industry would have benefited greatly from attending.

Jim Budd: Exploring Experience Methods Across Disciplines.

This presentation was great, it focused on product design. The key walk away for me had to do with products expressing a personality; seeming more human if you will.

He showed an example of a study one of his students had done that drew comparisons between character design (cartoons) and product design. One of the main examples in the study was a radio that was designed as a cartoon and the key exaggerated characteristics of that character were carried over to the product design. It looked very interesting, and would certainly apply to application design as well. I am working on getting actual references to the work, and I will post a link here when I get it.

Some of Jim’s current students demoed some very interesting work they were doing. They have been developing a very interesting learning tool for children that mix the fun of arranging physical objects with the fun of digital learning. Children would arrange block people, houses, trees, etc on a playing board that was filled with sensors. This board will translate the scenes the child builds into a digital world on a computer (in Flash), where the child’s creation can be saved. The child can bring the scene to life with sound and animation as well, all by placing objects on the board. It was a great demo.

Dave Lougheed – How to Build World-Class Websites

Dave spent much of the time discussing Blast Radius’s process for developing interactive experiences. The presentation was good/detailed, and likely benefited the members of the audience working in print, or other areas of design unfamiliar with the roles within the typical interactive agency,. Explanation of the management of technological roles and design roles was the key focus.

While there were some conversation points in the presentation, the process explained is the same process most interactive firms claim to put into practice.

I believe that a great process is something that your clients should testify too, and if it really works well, and that is a known fact due to testimonial, it is a competitive advantage. Your competitive advantages are something you may not want to go out and break down in detail for your potential competitors.

One interesting thing I got out of the presentation had to do with naming of roles, and how they can be deceiving. Dave had a diagram of the roles and how they interact with each other. Creative Director was in the center of : Information Architect, Designer, Interface Developer, QA / Usability, Content Designer(writer). some of the latter names I didn’t get exactly right, but the key role I wanted to point out is “Creative Director”.

I insisted that Creative Director is a bad name for that role and is a bit misleading. Traditional Creative Directors are responsible for maintaining the creative vision of a project, but in the interactive design world, I seemed to like the term “Producer” much better.

The role he described is right in the middle of all aspects of the production of an interactive project (which may be much more than a website), and creative is just but one of those elements. I realize that this leans heavily on the 37signals “Interface/Design first” mentality, but that role is a tall order for any traditional creative director to live up to. This leads me to something that came up later in Blair’s presentation that has to do with specialization:

Blair spoke of the “Commoditization of Design”, a problem that plagues the world of print design today. The “one-stop shop” mentality that is manifesting itself now in interactive agencies today can be a dangerous one to promote.

Blair suggests that agencies have to start specializing service-wise and focus on vertical markets to remain relevant for the long term. Interactive Design is no longer a vertical in today’s world, it is fully horizontal. Trying to manage this evolving horizontal can lead to very large companies with a lot to keep up with, and not a lot of focus. What was once a specialist, is now a jack of all trades, and (potentially) master of none.

This is similar to the struggle that pure “Marketing/Design Agencies” have faced over the last ten years that actually caused these specialized interactive agencies to spawn. Further specialization and even deeper processes are required to be competitive today.

Producing a “website” and producing an “application” for example, are two very different beasts in today’s interactive world, and in many cases require different types of specialists. Both are web destinations potentially, but the process to create them is far from the same.

I see specialization in Web Entertainment Development, Web Application Development, Desktop Application Development, Mobile Content Development, Mobile Application Development, and Game Development as horizontal specialization if you really look at it. While the general interactive design process applies to all, it still does not lay out a realistic road map for those getting involved in the industry, as there is so much specialization required.

Print designers interested in moving to the interactive world (there were quite a few in the audience), actually have to upgrade their skill sets much more than they think.

So really there is a much more valuable conversation to be had here, amongst the design community:

“What is today’s definition of a specialist in the context of interactive design, and how do I keep my skills and processes relevant as a creative director or designer?”

Designing for the Senses by Christian Castel

This presentation was mostly a showcase of work. His studio is a broadcast design firm, creating promotional video of all types for television networks. Great work!

From Order-Taker to Expert: Battling the Commoditization of Design Presented By Blair Enns

I think I have explained his talk thoroughly already, so all I can do is suggest you see him speak if you have the chance. His presentations are relevant all the way from junior designer to company partner.

Overall I really enjoyed the event. The presentations were all more than I was expecting. I was a bit embarrassed for RGD by the low turnout for these great speakers, but the people that did attend got a lot out of it, and engaged in a lot of discussion after the fact.

It makes me wonder how relevant the RGD is in today’s day and age, could they be out of touch with their members and potential members? As a matter of fact, in the world of interactive design especially(being very international), does being a member really bring you any benefit as a professional?

I have started to attend Ottawa Bar Camps, and those events have been seeing steady growth in participation in the city, and when one is coming up, you will likely hear about it from one of your local colleagues. Demos Camps (the smaller format events) are next to impossible to find a seat at. you are literally shoulder to shoulder with other attendees.

This event in contrast had next to no buzz, and didn’t seem marketed well. That is bizarre when you consider who hosted the event. It leaves you with a taste that there is really no strong designer “community” in this city. Perhaps the RGD should pay closer attention to the successful methods of the Bar Camp format, and see if they can apply that to their organization and their marketing.