Stop-and-Think Design

Post inspired on Challenging Canonical Design, and originally published in Pulse. Back in the 1800's a huge creative burst happened as a result of the Industrial Revolution, men creating machinery, machinery creating labels, labels displaying brands, brands being consumed (as opposed to goods). Then we saw the same happening again, and again with the Personal Computers, then the Internet (especially with Web 2.0) and then with Smart Mobile Devices, etc. and the flexible nature of software solutions that they were capable of running.Graphical User Interfaces, Continuous Integration and The Cloud, allowed us to have the latest information displays in our pockets every day; they depict fancy dashboards that clutter our minds with data we don't need or dashboards that, oblivious to actual user needs, that try too hard to look pretty. However, the convention of more (of the same) is better or prettier (but the same) is better is pervasive in the digital age, in which we tend to multiply offering suppliers rather than value.One of the differences between the Industrial Age and the Digital Age is the hardness of the User Interface (at least for the purpose of this text, it is). Software applications made it possible to completely change the look and feel and human-device interaction without having to create new expensive molds, springs and cogs. But it seems that culturally we are still too afraid of challenging the design of legacy controls that are found on all operative systems and web-pages. This might be due to the three following reasons:

1. They represent a canon in their own niche. They have been like that for so long, that nobody thinks about their design anymore as something that can be improved. So, basically nobody notices.
2. There's a risk associated to going against status-quo. Once somebody notices that there is a need to change their design, they acknowledge that the new proposed solution might not be cognitively associated with its purpose, as...
3. Convention, standards, installed-base and learning-curve make it impossible. Try changing the design of a QWERTY keyboard, which was designed as a solution for the machines so that their keys wouldn't get stuck, rather than for ease of use as its failed cousin DVORAK.

Thankfully there's a wind of change. The digital age, brought with it a sub-revolution that derives from the readiness and availability of mobile devices, and the way they embedded technology in the every-day activities for many (the number of global smartphone users will surpass 2 billion in 2016), including grand-parents. The simplicity of small-and-single-purpose apps that could run in a phone without too much power flourished and narrowed down the feature scope of software to just a few core features that seamlessly aligned to a reduced user base (as compared to their desktop counterparts) which allowed software development companies to focus.This represents a great opportunity. The time to challenge design. Old and squared GUI controls can be re-thought. Designers can challenge again status-quo with minimal risk and can be bold again and aim to create new canons again, that defy the manufacturing process of hardware so that they align more to their users.

Is this the time that Dvorak was waiting for to release his new keyboard layout? #UX #Design #productinnovation http://t.co/zmOjhL46kS— Edgar Anzaldúa (@edgarator) February 19, 2015

But don't take my word for it. If you want to learn more about challenging design you can go to the following sources:

• Henry Heinz: Making Markets for Processed Foods
• Howard Schultz and Starbucks Coffee Company
• The Weather, by Tim Ripper
• What You Can Learn From The Failure of DVORAK, by IMG
• Challenging Canonical Design, by me

The case studies about Henry Heinz and Howard Schultz talk about the design of their businesses around their contextual constraints and environment (1800's and 1980's respectively). They give incredible insight on how to design with people in mind and are incredibly good reads.