Design

The Fuss About Macs, Priming, and Racism

Alan Steele (ex-Jobster colleague) tweets:

“using a mac for the first time in many years. so far i don’t see what all the fuss is about. it’s just another desktop…”

I tend to agree. A computer is a means to an end, and an XP Windows box usually gets me to my “end” just fine.

There are certainly some differences among the platforms, but I think it mostly comes down to how the Mac makes the user FEEL (which is partially a UI thing and partially a marketing coup by Apple). [Note: During the writing of this meandering post, my PC made me feel pretty annoyed by popping up a modal window prompting me to restart my fooking computer *3* times.]

Which leads me to one of my favorite blog posts by Seth Godin.

Aren’t convinced that Apple can manipulate your feelings? Think you’re above all that? You should check out the priming studies done by John Bargh. Here’s a good description of one (some lazy Googling only yielded one good overview– from some Christian blog. Please note: I am a Pastafarian and do not read Christian blogs if I can help it):

Bargh and several colleagues chose a group of undergraduates as subjects and gave them two scrambled-sentence tests. The first test was sprinkled with rude words like “disturb,” “bother,” and “intrude.” The second test was sprinkled with polite words like “respect,” “considerate,” and “yield.”

In both cases, the tests were indiscreet. None of the subjects picked up on the word trend consciously. But it primed them subconsciously.

After taking the five-minute test, students were asked to walk down the hall and talk to the person running the experiment about their next assignment. An actor was strategically engaged in conversation with the experimenter when the students would arrive. And the goal was to see how long it would take students to interrupt.

Bargh wanted to know if the subjects who were primed with polite words would take longer to interrupt the conversation than those primed with rude words. They thought the subconscious priming would have a slight affect. But the affect was pretty profound in quantitative terms.

The people primed with rude words interrupted, on average, after only five minutes. But 82% of the people primed with polite words never interrupted at all. Who knows how long they would have patiently and politely waited if the researchers hadn’t give the test a ten-minute time limit. [Note by Tony: Those damn ethics committees... Milgram would never be able to get away with his experiment today!]

From a product/marketing point of view, I’m forced to conclude that we’re getting “primed” every day in thousands of subtle ways… And that I’m probably as susceptible as the next guy.

We’re definitely getting off-topic here, but there’s another pretty frightening study about priming ((source)):

In a separate study, when African-American students were asked to identify their race on a pre-test questioner, the simple act of checking the box next to African American was enough to prime them with negative cultural stereotypes associated with African Americans and academic achievement. The number of items they got right was cut in HALF. Malcolm Gladwell makes a strong point that priming is a powerful thing. Personally I think this has incredible implications in our society. If ‘smart’ is really just a frame of mind, these social cues (such as African American=less intelligent) are shaping not only the results of standardized tests, but the way we interact with each other in business and other professional fields.

The idea that priming can actually effect performance on intelligence-based tests is pretty damn horrifying. Makes me think twice about the multicultural efforts we endured in school… Maybe we should be emphasizing our sameness rather than our differences (if those differences come with baggage that actually inhibit performance/success through priming)? Of course, it’d be better yet to get rid of the baggage.

So, er…. Returning to my original point, which was… Oh yeah! Something about Macs, right? Apple has invested considerable time and effort trying to understand how people want to feel and making damn sure their products (and their marketing) makes them feel that way. That (plus a marginally better OS with less legacy issues and less drivers to deal with) is what the fuss is about (IMO).

Do Designers deserve a “seat at the strategy table”?

One of my favorite “design” bloggers out there is Josh Porter of Bokardo. In his most recent article, Josh contends that “designers need a place at the strategy table because their work depends on and is a direct result of it. If it’s not already, realizing the business strategy of the organization in an interface should be the designer’s primary job description.”

If you’ve ever given a designer a “we’re happy with how it works, just pretty it up” job (whether it’s a web site or a word doc), you need to read this article. Preferably right now (I’ll wait).

Unfortunately, I think Josh is overestimating both strategists ( “…off using terms like “conversion”, “user-generated content”, and “ROI”” ) and designers ( “…opining about “grid-based design”, “cross-browser rendering”, or “web standards”” ).

I’ve thrown out the idea in the past (and it tends to piss off a bunch of web designers): stunning visual design (as most people define it) isn’t very compatible with usability and usually only a coincidental relationship with lofty things like “business strategy”. Designers’ brains (and the brains of the people who hire them) simply aren’t wired that way.

Don’t believe me? Take this simple test to see if you’re thinking about design in the wrong way:

  • If you’re a designer: Open up your portfolio. If you don’t have a portfolio, pull up a mental picture of the last one you had. What does it look like? Lots of screenshots, no? Next to each screenshot, do you talk about the business goals of the client/employer? Do you talk about how the design performed after launch? Do you know how the design performed after launch? Do you CARE how the design performed after launch? Answer that last question honestly– of COURSE you care how it performed, but was acquiring that knowledge a higher priority for you than your next pixel-slinging / xhtml-wrangling task?
  • If you’ve hired a designer: Look at the last time or two you’ve hired a designer. What type of person did you hire? Why did you choose that designer over the alternatives? Did you ask about business strategy? Did you ask about post-design performance metrics?
  • Bonus question for non-designers: Have you ever thought or said, “If I was only better at Photoshop and/or Illustrator and/or XHTML/CSS/JavaScript, I could do this myself.”?

Maybe– hopefully– you are the exception to the rule.

What stands in the way of making things better?

Unfortunately, things aren’t likely to change soon. There are a few attitudes that stand in the way:

  • Designers need to stop thinking and acting like artists and start acting like scientists. I’m honestly not sure this is possible.
  • Non-designers need to stop thinking that they are good at crafting user experiences. Don’t get me wrong– they should certainly have an opinion, voice ideas, express concerns, etc. I’m not saying that they should shut up and let the expert do their job… They just need to realize that it’s possible to BE an expert.
  • Everyone need to be willing to sacrifice pretty and sacrifice “cool”. At my last job (the only time I haven’t been self-employed in the last decade), the product team united around a user experience to create a public “resume”. It was a gorgeous multi-step experience with a few inline “wizards”. Users could edit their public profile after the fact in a seamless inline manner while viewing their profile (imagine lots of “edit” links next to editable data). The team loved it. The CEO gushed. The designer was proud. The users, however, were confused as hell.
  • Non-designers need to hire designers with the right attitudes and reward the right successes. If both parties think the designer’s job is done when they hear, “Wow– that’s beautiful”, then there’s a problem.

I love pretty much everything Josh is proposing, but I’ve only met a tiny handful of designers who have the discipline to purposefully make something LESS PRETTY and LESS COOL to make it more effective. And I know even fewer product managers who have the discipline to ask them to.

Mutual Awe

The best teams I’ve ever worked on have had a peculiar vibe of “mutual awe”. When I saw what my colleagues could pull off, I was dazzled. When I pulled off something cool, THEY were dazzled.

At the same time, I think it’s tremendously valuable to be a hobbyist in the areas where your partners are experts. I’ll never be a programmer, but I’ll always dabble– it helps me know what CAN be done. I’ll never be a salesguy (though I’ve been one), but I read books on how to sell. I’ll never be a writer, but I like to read about the art/science of writing good copy.

One of the blog entries that has stuck with me for a while is Guy Kawasaki’s post on workplace assholes (it even comes with a handy self-exam! (Are YOU one? Uh-oh. Am *I* one?!).

The main reason that the post/test stuck with me was one of the characteristics of workplace assholedom is this belief:

“I could do your job better than you’re doing.”

I’ve already sung the praises of small teams, but I’ll add this to the heap. The smaller the team, the greater to potential for mutual respect and/or awe. The larger the team, the greater the likelihood that SOMEONE on the team is thinking (or even saying) that they could make better design/coding/sales/biz decisions than the person who is currently making them.

Ironically, the larger the team, the greater the likelihood that they might be right.

Crappy (and overpriced) logos and saying what you mean

Cost per pixel?With much pageantry and fanfare, the 2012 Olympics logo has been unleashed upon the world, and it appears to be a disaster. It reminds of another logo debacle back in my home town.

My favorite bit of coverage on the logo is (predictably) from Seth Godin, who talks about the accompanying quote on the press release:

“This is the vision at the very heart of our brand,” said London 2012 organising committee chairman Seb Coe.

“It will define the venues we build and the Games we hold and act as a reminder of our promise to use the Olympic spirit to inspire everyone and reach out to young people around the world.

“It is an invitation to take part and be involved.”

What the HELL does that even mean?

It reminds me of the book I’m reading (and continue to be bowled over by)… “Made to Stick” by the brothers Heath. One of the stickiest passages in the book is when they talk about John F. Kennedy saying “”I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth.” The Heaths suggested that nowadays a statement like that would’ve gotten thoroughly mangled by corporate wordsmiths to read more like “The United States will leverage our aeronautical expertise and our commitment to scientific excellence to achieve what we feel is a laudable goal for this decade. Our actions need to reflect the promise of our established national brand. The support this brand, we invite the world to watch us and be inspired as we begin the 10-year process of getting to the moon.”

When you start throwing around big money for branding and having your corporate spin doctors pile on the double-speak, it can feel pretty damn manipulative. And now that anyone can voice their opinion on these wonderful intertubes of ours, the people who feel manipulated can let you know how they feel. Well, as London 2012 organising committee chairman Seb Coe says, “It is an invitation to take part and be involved.”

1 2 3 Scroll to top