I'll be the guest on this Wednesday's (Feb 11th) Design Forty to discuss design research blogging (what else?). Design Forty is a weekly 40-minute conference call hosted by Dan Rockwell of Lextant. It's open to anyone, but requires registration to join in the call via Calliflower.
Last, but not least, in a number of my recent writings around the topic of simplicity in product design. keep it simple,stupid (pdf) , is a an overview of the "state-of-the-art" of simplicity and clarity in products and product design methods. With input from business and design experts including, The Harvard Business Review, Dan Saffer, John Madea, Nathan Shredoff and 37signals, not to mention my own perspectives:
"There are a number of ways to achieve clarity, but what they all have in common is a goal of balancing three characteristics of the user experience: guidance, comfort and sensation. Guidance is the most straightforward and refers to a product or system’s ability to clearly articulate how it works to the user. Guidance may be communicated implicitly in the design of the interface elements, or explicitly via instructions and labels. Comfort refers to the degree of fit between the user and the system. This can include the physical or ergonomic suitability and the appropriate level of cognitive demand. Finally, sensation is the ability of the system to motivate the user to interact. Ultimately, clarity is achieved when a user knows how to use a product, is able to do so comfortably and is engaged with it during use."
The article also highlights some recent successful products that were driven by simplicity including the Flip Video Mino (pictured above) and the Tata Nano car (below).
The article was published in issue #4 of Barclays 360 magazine.
There's a number of ways to stay up to date on the latest postings here...RSS, email, and now Twitter. Just follow me on Twitter (robtannen) and you'll get tweets when new posts are loaded.
DesigningforHumans.com just passed 100,000 page views. While that's not a lot in Internet terms, it is a milestone for a small blog. Incidentally, the 100,000th hit was from a Google search for someone looking for anthropometric information on shoulder width.
Next month we'll be the start of the 5th year for the site, and I am planning a major site redesign as well as new content and features. As always your interest and inquires are appreciated - robtannen@hotmail.com
Have a happy and safe new year!
-Rob Tannen
With just a few weeks left in the year (and even less productive blogging time), I thought I would put together this brief "best of 2008" on Designing for Humans. If you're new to the blog, this is a good way to catch-up on some of the highlights you may have missed over the past year:
...okay, my link pen ran out.
Thanks to the new Blog Link feature, you can now read Designing for Humans postings on LinkedIn. You can do this by adding or accessing the Blog Link application directly from your LinkedIn home page (right hand column) - note that the data loading for this feature still seems to be a bit buggy. (You also need to be connected with me on LinkedIn, so it may no be worth your while.)
What's the value of this? While it certainly isn't as efficient as using a regular blog aggregator/reader it's smartly integrated with LinkedIn. For example, it will automatically pull in the lastest blog postings from all of your connections based on the what sites they have listed in their profile, so it's essentially a seamless process. It's also a way to find out about blogs from your connections that you may not know about.
And speaking of connections, the site has had a lot of traffic this week regarding the FieldCREW design research concept, primarily driven via postings on:
A couple of months ago I described my experience as a juror for the ID Magazine Annual Review. For the last couple of days I had the terrific opportunity to serve on the jury of the IDSA/Businessweek IDEAs (International Design Excellence Awards).
While I am not able to discuss particulars of the entrants or awardees, I would like to share my observations on the experience. In particular, I'd like to discuss my realization that the social aspects of judging designs is analogous to the social aspects of the design process itself.
What do I mean by social aspects? Consider the various interpersonal interactions that occur during the design process - collaboration during concept generation, peer critique during refinement, and eventually, client feedback. The value and outcomes of each of these situations greatly depend on the personalities and interpersonal dynamics of those involved. This is a natural part of the design process, as it should be of most successful human endeavors.
Collaboration and iterative review were very much a part of this year's IDEA judging. (For more information on the judging process, listen to jury chair Alistair Hamilton's podcast on the 2008 IDEAs.) Much like the start of concept generation, the review process began with each of the 20 jurors working independently. During the first phase of judging, each juror independently reviewed all of the submitted documentation (forms, images, videos, etc) entries within a a set of assigned subcategories.
But this quickly became a collaborative effort as subcategories were assigned to two jurors. Following their independent reviews, pairs would discuss their recommendations with each other. When there was disagreement about particular entries, a juror had to convince his or her partner about whether or not to advance an entry to the finalist round. Although jurors were not the creators of the designs (jurors were recused from entries that they had involvement with) this back and forth reminded me of the discussion that goes on when designers meet to discuss the relative merits of their concepts or sketches.
In the next round, each judging pair reviewed their selected finalists in person. This year's IDEA awards judging was improved over previous year's, because for the first time (!), the jurors had access to most of the actual products for the design finalists. Consequently, the discussions were more focused on issues such as details, comfort and finish - much like they would be in a design review of refined prototypes. Again, each juror had to "make the case" to his or her partner for the designs that deserved merit. As in the design process, some designs which sounded good on paper, fell short in person, while others exceeded expectations.
The iterative review process continued with a larger review cycle. This time three or four pairs of jurors discussed the designs that they had selected. Up until this point, jurors had only examined their assigned subcategories, so it was comparable to presenting a refined design to a larger group that had not been directly involved, such as a broader design or management team, or even a client. During this cycle modifications were made based on constructive input and discussion within the working team. At the conclusion of this phase, each of the award winners had been selected and agreed upon by the majority of each working group.
Finally, all of the designs (both award winners and finalists) were open for discussion to the entire group of 20 jurors. In this last-check round, any juror could suggest raising or lowering the award recognition of any item, whether they had reviewed it previously or not. This provided a valuable diversity of inputs and perspectives, but the decision was ultimately left up to the relevant working team because of their deeper knowledge of the particular subcategories.
In retrospect, it was clear that jurying reflected the design process (arguably, as it should) in many essential ways: small-team collaboration, iterative review, and making the case in front of progressively larger stakeholder groups. Ultimately, like design, it was a mix of creative, intellectual fun and time-constrained challenges.
Last, but not least, a nod of recognition to all of the entrants, my peer jurors, and especially the IDSA staff for their excellent organization and support that made this process possible and succesful.
One of the positive side effects of blogging is that people contact me with various, relevant issues such as career advice, research questions and help with finding references. I occasionally get very specific human factors questions as well.
But today I go the oddest question. It was from a car dealer who I do not know. I have removed the name and contact information for anonymity, but here is the word-for-word email:
im the Business Manager with the Local Ford Dealer.
My questions is...is there away to swap the position of the the brake and
accelator pedals in 2008 Ford Focus, we have a Tech, who's aunt wants a new
Focus and needs the pedals swapped!!
Im hoping you can help or point me in the right direction.
I responded that I did not think it was a good idea, and probably not legal to do so. Anyone know otherwise?
Last week I had the privilege of serving on the equipment category jury for the 2008 I.D. Magazine Annual Design Review (to be published this summer). By way of background, I.D. has been conducting an annual review of the best designs for over 50 years. This is something I had wanted to do since I read the magazine as a teenager (perhaps that says as much about my social life as my interest in design, but anyway). Besides equipment, there are a range of categories including consumer products, interactive design, furniture, environment and graphics. Consequently, the selected winners are not only considered the best designs, but represent the state of the art in each category.
Given my background, I saw my responsibility as focusing on the ergonomic aspects of each of the nearly 50 products we reviewed. My sensitivity to usability was heightened by staying in a New York hotel room the preceding night where the temperature controls were reversed. Unable to get my $300 room warmed-up, I later found out that, due to some technical fluke, I had to set the control to cold to activate the heat. This also meant lowering the thermostat to below the current room temperature so that the "cold" would switch on.
Fortunately, it turned out that my co-jurors who are designers/design teachers had as much to say about human factors, as I did about aesthetics. By its nature, the equipment category tends to evolve gradually, compared to the more dynamic year-to-year changes of interactive or even consumer products. The Annual Review issue will be published in a few months, so I can't go into details on the entries at this point (see the 2007 Annual Review for reference), but by participating in the judging process, I did learn or confirm some principles about what makes a successful entry.
The judging process is based on expert review and consensus - in other words the criteria changes from year to year based on the expertise, opinions and criteria of the particular judges in each category. At the same time, the nature of the judging process - one full day of going through a large number of entries - suggests the following to submitters:
1. Treat the Entry Process Like a Design Project: Successful designs meet the needs of their users. In this context, the users of the entry forms are expert designers and their tasks are to relatively quickly review and classify submissions. Design basics like appropriate use of typography and visuals to communicate information quickly and effectively are critical (one would think this would go without saying). In other words, given two hypothetically equal design submissions, the one with the well presented, visually structured entry may get more attention than the scribbled one. This may mean going above and beyond the constraints of the entry form, where appropriate.
2. Communicate to a Naive Audience: While jurors are experts in design, they can come from a range of industries and backgrounds. The equipment category in particular, includes a variety of complex, technical products that may be unfamiliar and require explanation. Explanations should include a scenario to describe when, how and why such products are used. In some cases, videos can illustrate usage with a demonstration or simulation. Similarly, it is valuable to explicitly communicate why a particular product is an improvement over competitor or predecessors, as jurors may not be knowledgeable of particular domains.
3. Link the Product to the Greater Design World: Jurors are not only looking at the inherent strengths of a particular design, but how it fits into the current, changing design world (re: my earlier comment about the Annual Review representing the state-of-the art). Consider that two well-designed products from completely different fields need to be compared against each other - broad, less tangible factors such as symbolism of emerging design trends, or benefits to society and the environment may come into play. This is not an easy area for the submitter to address, but I suggest considering the ramifications of a design to the field of "Design", as well as a product's specific users and industry.
I look forward to discussing the Annual Review issue when it comes out.
The IDSA Human Factors section site (what you're reading right now), has been reconfigured and renamed. It is now DesigningforHumans.com
All of the previously working bookmarks, links and subscriptions should continue to work as before - you can continue to access the site with the previous URL - http://www.humanfactors.typepad.com/, or the new one. All new links will use the DesigningforHumans.com domain, but will automatically map back to the old domain as well for continuity. Please email me if you experience a problem: robtannen@hotmail.com
The change was made to give the site a more memorable and meaningful identity, but the content and mission remain the same - to inform IDSA members and the overall industrial design community about human factors, design research and usability. The name is a tribute to Henry Dreyfuss' Designing for People, with our obvious slant towards human factors.
As we're coming up on the 3rd anniversary of the Human Factors section site as a blog format (and eight years since the first version - more on that in the future), we're planning some small changes soon. We'll make some minor design adjustments, but are also going to map to a more meaningful and memorable URL. If you have suggestions, post as a comment here or email me at robtannen@hotmail.com If we end up using your suggestion (and hadn't already thought of it ourselves, and assuming the domain name is available, etc., etc.) you'll get a $25 Amazon.com gift certififcate. Something original, but identifiable, serious, but clever.
The IDSA Human Factors professional interest section is looking for article submissions for this blog. These can be short (500-1500 words) pieces on topics related to user research, human factors, usability, ethnography or other related topics. Focus should be on methods, case studies and other instructional content. Submissions should be focused on industrial or product design, rather than on related topics such as interaction design.
In terms of format, the Boxes and Arrows site (focusing on information architecture) is a good model of tone and length. See for example, a recent article on stakeholder interviews.
If interested, please send a brief summary or outline of your article idea to robtannen@hotmail.com
You can now receive email notifications when new content is posted to this site. This is an alternative to check the site or using a more traditional RSS feed tool. The email notification is enabled by FeedBlitz and requires signing up via the email updates field on the right side of the page.
This blog has just been given a more professional look-and-feel thanks to some new design templates offered by TypePad. I chose this design as it seemed to give the best balance of aesthetics and readability, while emphasizing the IDSA red, albeit not the same red value. Let me know if you have any feedback about this new design.
Tips for using and contributing to this site:
What is it?
RSS is a format for publishing online content. Web page content is typically published in HTML format. RSS is an alternate format that is used to deliver text content to RSS readers or aggregators. RSS aggregators are web sites or tools that allow you to subscribe to RSS-compatible Web content. Think of an RSS aggregator as an inbox, but instead of receiving emails, you receive messages from your selected sites and blogs about new content on those sites. This allows you to receive new site content when it is published, in a single place - and you won't have to routinely check your favorite sites to see what has been added.
How do I do this?
You first need to download or subscribe to an RSS aggregator. Recommended examples (that are also free) include You Subscribe: RSS and News Gator Online. These tools allow you to receive subscribed content within Outlook or via a single, customized Web page.
You will then need to subscribe to sites of interest. Many sites and blogs provide RSS-format versions of their content. To subscribe to the IDSA Human Factors section site (this site), you'll need to subscribe using your RSS aggregator to the following URL:
Here's a synopsis of the survey results we collected to provide input on the content for this site. Thanks to all who have responded. You can also view a more detailed summary of survey results.
We've already made some minor updates based on the suvey responses and will be adding suggested content shortly, but we'll need your suggestions and input to continiously provide useful information. Please email Rob Tannen, rtannen@electronicink.com, with ideas or contributions.
We also plan to share this information with other IDSA section groups so that they can improve the awareness and content of their respective section sites.
We're conducting an online survey to gather input on the type of content that people would like to see on the site.
If you have not received an email invitation, feel free to complete the survey using this link:
http://www.surveymk.com/s.asp?u=27050926866
If you have received an email invitation (HF section members), this link is the same one in your invitaiton, so please do not submit multiple surveys.
The results from the survey will be presented (and eventually, reflected) on the site in the near future.
Welcome to the Human Factors Professional Interest Section of the Industrial Designers Society of America website. This is one of several IDSA professional interest section sites.
The aims of the Human Factors (HF) section are to promote interest, knowledge, and responsibility for the cognitive, ergonomic, and perceptual aspects of product design and use. Read more about Human Factors in the IDSA.
The section chair is Stephen Wilcox.
This blog is authored and maintained by Rob Tannen.
