"I'm watching you" said the computer

Recently, on his blog, Joe Blau suggested that we make a new addition to the pantheon of commonly understood digital symbols. This new symbol, which you can see above, would signify 'Context' or that a computer is assessing your context in order to improve your experience. It would be used ubiquitously like the other symbols we use today (wifi, Bluetooth, power, location, etc). Blau provides two examples where it might be useful: Nest (the thermostat would signify that it sees you and is adjusting accordingly) and Tesla (the dash would signify that it's assessing context in driver-assist mode).

I have two conflicting reactions to this idea. It simultaneously seems useful and completely unnecessary. As the computers around us continue to notice us, it would be nice to have a universal way for them to tell us "I'm watching you." If nothing else, this helps us feel like we're still one step ahead of the singularity. To provide another example, the smart assistant hardware we are inviting into our homes (Amazon Echo, Google Home) are quietly listening to us even when we're not directly talking to them. They are listening for keywords but are listening nonetheless. It would be nice to have a visual indication that they are assessing context, just as a reminder that we're being observed.

Beyond that, I question the usefulness of such a symbol as a universal indicator for users. The other universal symbols generally represent connectivity (you are connected to something or not: wifi, the cell network, a keyboard) or universal actions (play/pause, search). The one outlier is the location services symbol (which is not a universal icon between operating systems) that signifies that your device is using GPS to identify your location. Like the 'Location Services' symbol, a 'Context' symbol would give the impression of usefulness but would gloss over detail and tell the user very little about what is actually happening.

An interface should clearly communicate itself to a user. Blau is right that as we increase the number of AI and sensor-aided experiences we are going to have trouble communicating exactly what is happening. However, I would argue that a single symbol is too reductive to be useful. It can't easily say what it's observing or why it's observing. Think about the difference between his two examples: Nest vs. Tesla. There is a severe difference between my thermostat telling me it noticed me and my car telling me it's taking over major cognitive aspects of driving. There are necessary distinctions in how those two pieces of information get communicated. 

Perhaps most simply, if we use this symbol to just signify that an AI process is happening, it will eventually be on every device and will be illuminated at all times, rendering it meaningless. We need to investigate more meaningful ways to communicate—or perhaps not communicate—that a computer is thinking for us. 

Despite my critique, I think Blau has raised an interesting idea. It's a nice thought experiment and an interesting design problem. Thanks for surfacing it, Joe!

Read his post: https://blog.joeblau.com/symbol-for-context
The Context Symbol on GitHub: https://github.com/design-utilities/context-symbol

Being a young, solo UI/UX designer

I don't usually enjoy reading comment threads but I came across one that promoted a useful, thoughtful conversation. On Designer News, a young designer asked: 

What advice would you give a young UX/UI designer that is thinking about joining a small start-up as the only designer? Would you recommend it?

If you're in a similar situation, you might find the conversation insightful.

Dubberly on Designing Systems

While doing some reading in preparation for my Fall courses, I came across a reference to this Hugh Dubberly lecture from a few years ago. It's a talk he gave at Carnegie Mellon about the effect that systems have on design practice. Even though it's from 2012, I think it's still pretty relevant today. He also references some books about conceptual models in design that I'm definitely going to check out.

Designing Digital Experiences in 2020

I delivered a presentation at the AIGA Design Education Community's Nuts+Bolts conference about competencies that designers will need in the near future. You can read about it, see a slide deck, and peruse my literature review at this page: Designing Digital Experiences in 2020.

New-wave "bad" web design

Interesting article on The Washington Post about a new trend of "bad" web design. This raises questions about the definition of "good" web design. It also shines a light on the general feeling in the industry that we've reached the pinnacle of the craft. Designers seem restless and this might be a product of that. 

Full Article: "The hottest trend in web design is making intentionally ugly, difficult sites"

Generalist Designers

A helpful reflection on the skills of modern designers.

Should designers learn to code or focus on design? Should they generalize or specialize in one area? These debates distract us from the real issue: it doesn’t matter how you realize your work, as long as the end result is a clear articulation of your design vision. Specific skill sets are merely a means to an end.

Source: Emmet Connolly from Intercom

Interaction 16: Day Three Recap

Here are my collected thoughts on what I saw on the third and final day of Interaction 16. I had not been to an Interaction conference before this one and was not sure what to expect. Overall, the experience was pretty good. I found most of the talks to be insightful and I genuinely learned new things throughout the day. They did a good job of putting together the slate of speakers. It was refreshing to be at a professional conference and hear groundbreaking work happening in industry. I hope to attend another one in the future. So, without further ado, here's the rundown from Day Three:

---

Tricia Wang (@triciawang), an applied ethnographer who used to work for Nokia and now runs a human-centric data consultancy (Constellation Data), gave the morning keynote. She showed us why context is as important (if not more important) than content when designing. She also cautioned is that methods like big data and virtual reality, while they seem objective, are always editorialized by the designers who presents them. Unrelated to most of the talk, but interesting nonetheless, she taught us that chickens can be hypnotized by looking at a straight line:

Alper Çuğun (@alper), who used to co-run a gaming company called Hubbub, talked about conversational interfaces. I've been really interested in these lately so I found it very helpful. He showed an example of a conversational UI that they developed and gave a rundown of do's and dont's when designing for them. One interesting insight was that they found that kids will read a lot of text if they get it in SMS-sized chunks. He smartly called conversational UIs the "UI for AI" and cautioned that they are not perfect for every use case.

Josh Clark (@bigmediumjosh), author of Designing for Touch and Tapworthy, showed us how to consider magic when design UIs. He challenged us to make the technology recede in order to create "magical" experiences for people. He's a very engaging speaker; If you're at a conference where he is speaking, I recommend you attend.

The final keynote was by Cameron Sinclair (@casinclair) runs a group called Small Works who use design to improve the lives of refugees and the poor all over the world. Thy are doing some amazing things with very little. His most provocative statement was this: Designers are in the top creative and intellectual 1% of the world. If they are engaging in any form of charity that doesn't involve their design skill, they are wasting everyone's time. Here is a sketchnote from his talk:

My talk via @priscillamok - so lovely! pic.twitter.com/lQiakPXItJ

— Cameron Sinclair (@casinclair) March 6, 2016