Does Graphic Design Have Superpowers?

by Andy Polaine on February 1, 2010

in General

spiderman_subway.jpg

(Photo: ndinneen)

Rich Smith, a graphic design student in the UK wrote to me about the presentation I gave at AGDA’s Design A Better World event. He asked me what thoughts I had about the title of his thesis, “The Superpowers of Graphic Design” and the impact it can have on little things that might create big changes. It’s quite a question – here was my long answer:

Your subject is a big issue at the moment and it’s not easily answered. A while ago I talked with Stefan Sagmeister about this and his view was that it’s irrelevant whether or not we are designers, simply that we all have a duty to the our fellow man and the planet as human beings. I put some of it an essay I wrote with my colleague, Rick Bennett, when we set up something called the Omnium Creative Network (now morphed into the Omnium Outreach Projects. It’s called What the World Needs Now and there is also an interview with Paul Nini for the same project, talking about ethical issues.

I think the power of graphic design is paradoxically both overrated and underrated. It’s overrated because it’s pretty superficial most of the time and many designers execute their designs pretty superficially too. There are manifold reasons for this – from lousy clients, bad pay and unrealistic deadlines to laziness and lack of care. But the digital revolution has a big part to play. It’s so easy to turn out a huge body of work and have it printed or otherwise exposed to the world. It’s easy to make many variations without much thought. When it took a great deal of effort to manually draw a new version of a design, the slowness gave you time to think (something that Tomato’s John Warwicker once said to me was how much he liked it when computers were slow – the progress bar gave him time to think). It also made you consider your decisions much more because there were real penalties to changing your mind later down the line.

I’m not saying computers are a bad thing – I’m originally an interaction designer and generally a ‘digital guy’ – but I do recognise the impact they have on designers’ processes. Although it seems like computers have been around for ages and that so much has changed in the last 20 years, they’re really pretty new in the much longer context of design as an activity. I don’t think designers have become mature in their relationship to the computer yet. I think there’s at least one more generation to go before that happens – when the designers in their 60s and 70s are the grand old men and the equivalents of Milton Glaser and are the ones that have used computers all their lives, then I think they’ll have something interesting to say. We’re not there yet.

But I digress.

So, graphic design is, in one sense, totally superficial and has little power, not to mention superpower. In fact it regularly contributes to a lot of problems due to its rather slavish relationship to advertising and marketing. But that’s the paradox. If graphic design’s little sins (branding on everything, glossing over the truth of a product, using sexualised imagery to sell, greenwashing products, etc., etc.) are such contributors to the problems of the world, then that also means it has significant power. You can cause problems without having some kind of influence. But it’s as much power as, say, leaving your hall light on all night. Many of the small things are the things that got us into the environmental mess we’re in because they’re easy to ignore and because they don’t seem to matter.

But they do matter when you add them all up. All those seductive images of bottled water that make you feel healthy and pure and fit when you buy it and drink it – all lies, all terrible for the environment as a result, all seemingly trivial. So the paradox is that it is exactly graphic design’s triviality (and, by extension, it’s role in advertising and consumerism) that gives it its power, albeit a negative one. The fact that people don’t think about whether a picture of some clouds or a Scottish spring on a bottle of water really masks an industrial scale process that uses masses of petrochemicals in its bottles is both a feat of design genius and pretty insidious.

Designer’s give up that personal power because they tend to, like the consumers themselves, either not think it’s a big deal or consider what they’re doing as trivial. Sometimes they get wrapped up in the creative process and serving a client and forget to consider those aspects. Lastly, graphic design has constantly been kept low down in the production foodchain – you get given the brief after all the important decisions have been made. So, it’s easy to decide it’s not your role and that putting food on the family’s table is more important.

Yet there is still power there in that last stage of the design chain because it’s where the rubber meets the road, as Nancy Bernard says in Citizen Designer (a book I recommend, by the way, and most of it is on Google Books). The point being that graphic design is often the first point of contact anyone has with a product or service. So designers might be the last in the production process, but they play a vital role in nudging behaviour. People buy this brand instead of that brand based on pretty superficial aesthetic reasons most of the time. Many people deny this, especially those with science or engineering backgrounds who pride themselves on rigorous rationality. I don’t believe them. The best example is to think of when you last bought a bottle of wine based on what the label looked like – I’d be willing to bet it was pretty recently and happens quite often.

Nudging behaviour is, of course, the way to make or encourage people to make small changes that seem trivial and that’s what’s so important and where the power can be used. (There’s even a whole book about nudges too). A huge poster or web campaign about saving the rainforests or stopping glaciers melting is just too big. What can I do? I can’t stop a glacier melting, so why should I bother or pay attention? A piece of label design that tells me something encouraging and honest about, well, let’s say a bottle of wine, might make me change to that brand. It’s a small decision, costs me very little money or intellectual energy and it’s precisely because it’s seems trivial and irrelevant that I will so easily change my behaviour. My feeling is that graphic designers should pay attention to the details with the big picture in mind. Fight the small battles in order to win the war. And designers are good on details.

Of course there are a whole load of other areas where designers can make a difference to behaviour, but I think these move into interaction and interface design, service and experience design, product design and many other areas. Things like smart meters can and could have a big impact on energy usage in the home and office – some the biggest contributors to man-made CO2 output. It makes no sense to have a gas or electricity meter in the cellar, tucked out of the way and counting up in units that the consumer can make no sense of. It makes much more sense to have a meter telling you how much money you are spending on electricity at the moment or visually display your energy consumption in an informative way. That’s where designers can play a role by helping make sense of complexity and presenting it in ways that users can make informed decisions about and change their behaviour accordingly. Switching off appliances isn’t taxing, but making people care about doing it is.

All this also requires understanding the history and context of a service such as electricity provision, how it has been installed and ‘curated’ by energy companies and, of course, why they have a vested interest in you not knowing how much you are using until you get the bill at the end of the month or, like here in Germany, at the end of year when it is a total shocker. That involves design thinking – service design thinking I would argue – at a more complex level than graphic designers usually get the chance to do in many of the projects they are brought in on.

Sometimes superpowers aren’t necessary. Being the drop of water than cracks the stone can work just as well and, best of all, some people don’t even notice how much power you wield and won’t try and take it away from you as a result.

Share this:
  • TwitThis
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon
  • email

{ 3 comments }

Is Design Research Useless for Innovation?

by Andy Polaine on December 11, 2009

in General

Don Norman has just posted a very provocative and thoughtful piece about the value of design research, or not.

“I’ve come to a disconcerting conclusion: design research is great when it comes to improving existing product categories but essentially useless when it comes to new, innovative breakthroughs.”

You should read the full article, but he goes on to essentially argue that innovation is driven by technology not needs. This leads him to this: “Myth: Use ethnographic observational studies to discover hidden, unmet needs” and continues:

“But the real question is how much all this helps products? Very little. In fact, let me try to be even more provocative: although the deep and rich study of people’s lives is useful for incremental innovation, history shows that this is not how the brilliant, earth-shattering, revolutionary innovations come about.

“Major innovation comes from technologists who have little understanding of all this research stuff: they invent because they are inventors. They create for the same reason that people climb mountains: to demonstrate that they can do so. Most of these inventions fail, but the ones that succeed change our lives.

He then lists several examples, such as the airplane, the automobile, SMS messaging, etc. that arose from technology, not research. Obviously this touches a nerve for me, because it’s a large part of what I do and teach. I think it’s an important conversation to have, especially in academia, which can often be terribly navel-gazing and/or over-zealous about the importance of a certain avenue of research because it’s what is required to get grant funding. But I think Norman is both right and wrong and also viewing needs and technology from an engineering perspective (which has always been my criticism of him, despite his human centred design views). Here’s the clincher:

“Edison launched his first phonograph company within months of his invention: he never questioned the need. He had invented the paperless office, he announced, and launched his product.”

The thing is, Edison did question the need, he just got it wrong. He thought the need for his invention was the paperless office. It turned out it was to record and sell music. To me, this example just goes to show how important it is to have an insight into people’s lives and examine not what they say they want or need, but what they actually need by watching what they do.

It’s also particularly pertinent in service design because it isn’t necessarily product or technology led. Of course Twitter is a service and one that is both potent and that people never knew they had a need for, but Twitter’s technology isn’t complex. Twitter didn’t arise from an innovative idea to build a chat space, Twitter arose from the idea of modifying an existing paradigm for a certain need.

In some ways I’m arguing my way back into Norman’s final point, which is that real usefulness comes from slow, incremental changes – ‘innovation’ that, in his words, is “least interesting innovations to the university and company research community”. He sums this up as, “technology first, invention second, needs last”. Whilst I agree that iterative processes often create innovation, and I also think that the way society uses a technology for things completely left-field to what it was originally designed for (e.g. SMS) is where some great innovation happens, I still don’t see this as technology coming first. Technology is just a medium through which culture expresses itself and with which people communicate, ultimately.

Technology without any application is either an innovation waiting to happen or something useless sitting in the corner like an old Betamax video recorder. If the need isn’t there, no level of technology helps anyone. I would add that this is a particularly American approach to the role and value of technology in a determinist fashion. It also reminds me of Andy Cameron and Richard Barbrook’s essay, The Californian Ideology.

Steve Portigal and Frog Design’s Adam Richardson have also written thoughtful responses to Norman’s piece, which is how I came across it. Todd Zaki Warfel has also written a rebuttal. [UPDATE: Good post from Nicolas on this over at Pasta & Vinegar. The comments are valuable too.]

Share this:
  • TwitThis
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon
  • email

{ 5 comments }

Time-shifting payments with Sprize and Swiss Rail

by Andy Polaine on December 7, 2009

in General

sprize.png

Gap’s new pilot service, Sprize, deals with an age-old irritation. You buy something at full-price only to find it reduced in a sale a few days later.

It is irritating for customers, who tend to feel ripped-off or cheated by the store or staff. But it is also a problem for stores, because it means customers defer buying things until they are discounted in a sale and thus potentially lose a sale because the customer forgets to come back or shops elsewhere.

Sprize works by customers opening a Sprize account where they accrue “SprizeMoney” (currently one-to-one in terms of Canadian dollars). If you buy something in Gap and the price on the item drops within 45 days, the difference is credited to your Sprize account.

It’s an interesting piece of service design because it deals with a customer annoyance, but also benefits the store. Actually, it’s still quite weighted towards the store’s benefit because the SprizeMoney can only be spent in Gap stores. So it is more like receiving a credit note for the difference. Gap still get to keep your money (and you must spend it within a year).

This kind of shifting of the perception of value is something I find fascinating. People will regularly make an effort to gain small savings in one area (the few cents difference between the cost of washing powders, for example), whilst ignoring spending in another (the over-priced coffee they drank whilst out shopping).

Oddly, time-shifting payments can sometimes feel like free, even when it is shifted into a lump sum. In Switzerland you can buy a season ticket called a General Abonnement. It seems that almost everyone who lives in Switzerland has one. The 2nd class adult one is CHF 3,100 per year (about £1,850 or US$3,050). So it’s not cheap, but it’s a one-off outlay. When you talk to people about their train usage, one if the things they say is that love taking the train because because it’s free (that and the trains in Switzerland are punctual and pleasant). This sense of it being ‘free’ means people are much more spontaneous with their train travel because they no longer think about the cost or hassle of buying tickets.

Like Sprize, a great deal of the benefit is really for the Swiss rail network (the SBB, CFF or FFS, depending on the language you choose). They get to have a large sum of everyone’s cash up-front, which they can then invest and make even more money from.

The benefit goes both ways – there’s a financial one for SBB and a lesser financial one for the customer, but in return SBB get more value from their customers’ money and the customer feels like they travel for free. Free as in the ‘free’ minutes you get monthly on your mobile phone contract, which you also pay for. The reason why people hate their mobile phone companies, though, is because they don’t hold to their side of the bargain thanks to the terrible service they tend to offer.

Sometimes service design is about getting the service right, sometimes it’s about presenting the evidence of the existing, positive service in the right way.

Share this:
  • TwitThis
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon
  • email

{ 3 comments }

Printing Your Toast

by Andy Polaine on December 6, 2009

in General

Toaster_.jpg

Congratulations to one of my MA students at Luzern, Othmar Mühlebach, who has just won the second prize at the Berner Design Awards for his toaster re-design. Based on the idea of a printer, you lay a stack of bread at the top and each slice runs through the toaster.

Given the trend for burning designs onto toast, I expect Othmar’s design could be modified to burn any kind of graphic. Might overheat the USB cable though.

Toaster_Othmar_Muehlebach.jpg

Share this:
  • TwitThis
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon
  • email

{ 25 comments }

Interviews with Nik Roope, Troika & Mark Hauenstein

by Andy Polaine on December 1, 2009

in General

Most of the interviews we shot for COFA Online have now gone online. A few others with Jona Piehl from Land Design Studio and Nik’s brother, Tom Roope from The Rumpus Room will be released next year and they all explore working in the grey area of merging and emerging disciplines.

Nik Roope gives some great insights into the thinking behind many of Poke’s successful projects:

Sebastien Noel and Eva Rucki from Troika on their cross-disciplinary projects:

Here, Mark Hauenstein talks about his journey from studying fine art to being head of Research and Development at AllofUs:

Thanks to Rachel for the great camera and editing work.

Share this:
  • TwitThis
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon
  • email

{ 2 comments }

Interviews with Brendan Dawes and Simon Waterfall

by Andy Polaine on November 11, 2009

in General

A few months ago I trekked around London with my filmaker and editor friend Rachel to shoot a whole load of interviews with designers and artists for COFAOnline. I still teach online for the College of Fine Arts at UNSW in Australia and these interviews will form an independent site as an ongoing resource as well as teaching material for the Masters of Cross-Disciplinary Art & Design. They are also being put up on YouTube and here are the first ones with Brendan Dawes and Simon Waterfall:

Share this:
  • TwitThis
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon
  • email

{ 4 comments }

Your Failure of Service Is Another’s Opportunity

by Andy Polaine on November 10, 2009

in General

arrivals dublin airport.jpg

Some of you have no doubt read Dustin Curtis’s post about the incompetence of American Airlines & The Fate of Mr. X. American Airlines fired Mr. X for publicly responding to Curtis. John Gruber picked up on this saying,

“The point is that American Airlines is clearly a failing company. They’re losing hundreds of millions of dollars every quarter. The experience of traveling on one of their flights is terrible. Their website is terrible. These facts are not unrelated.”

Later in response to a tweet he points out that, “[a]ny airline should have two goals: make it easy and pleasant to book travel, and make it pleasant to be on their flights. AA sucks at both.”

Ryanair and Easyjet suffer similar problems, but from the budget end of the market and the trade-off between price versus service is something I have been thinking about for some time. Why is it, for example, that people will shop around for a discount on a supermarket item that might amount to 50 cents, but happily stop for an overpriced coffee without thinking about it, this negating their bargain?

Obviously some of this is consumer psychology and perception of value, but it is easy for a company to be so focussed on being cheap at one end (the fares, in Ryanair’s case) and clawing back money in every which way at the other end (everything else, like check-in, which should be part of the service) that they fail to see the wood for the trees.

Low cost airlines are built on the no-frills principle, but when is a service a “frill” or simply a base level of service that one should expect? Online check-in is great when it works. It saves time for the customer and it saves the airline money. Given that the customer is doing the work for the company they should be rewarded for it, but penalising them for not doing so and thus having to provide a base level of service just ends up making customers hate the company and set up websites like these.

Whilst those websites might seem like a laugh, they highlight a general mood in the air (sorry about the pun). I know of nobody who enjoys flying with Easyjet or Ryanair, they simply put up with it because of the low price. At some point, though, the balance tips and the price/perception-of-value equation tips the other way. Additionally, the loathing makes people happy to pay another airline more because they can feel like they are punishing the cheap airline.

Focussing on adding extra costs everywhere also leaves service loopholes for others to fill. Since Ryanair started charging customers 40 Euros if they don’t check-in online, a company called Surfbox has set up Internet kiosks in airports that have printers, allowing passengers to print out their boarding passes for 1 euro, saving Passengers €3,900 per day, at Ryanair’s cost.

Share this:
  • TwitThis
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon
  • email

{ 1 comment }

Photosketch

by Andy Polaine on October 12, 2009

in General

PhotoSketch: Internet Image Montage from Tao Chen on Vimeo.

Photosketch: Internet Image Montage provides a simple way to make image composites by doodling a picture, adding labels and then letting the engine scour the Internet for suitable photos. Once it has found the most appropriate matches, it composites them together.

I can see lots of awful e-cards and Powerpoint presentations coming out of this, but it would be very useful for putting together prototype sketches for installations and services and it is a pretty remarkable bit of technology.

(Via Richard Banks)

Share this:
  • TwitThis
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon
  • email

{ 1 comment }

How much is good service worth? £25m for Amazon UK.

by Andy Polaine on October 8, 2009

in General

amazon_parcels.jpg

(Photo credit: xrrr on Flickr)

Amazon’s entire offering really boils down to two things.

The first is to facilitate a person in a warehouse somewhere picking a book off a shelf and sending it to you. Every other part of the service and online experience is essentially about making that happen ideally as swiftly, effortlessly and enjoyably as possible.

The second is to recommend books to you that you are either considering buying or didn’t even know existed. That part is what all the collaborative filtering (people who bought this also bought that), reviews and rating mechanisms are for. Usually the second point leads to the first – you make a purchase and they send it to you.

Key to this entire service experience is time. It’s quick to find things, quick to find alternatives and quick to get the book once you buy it. If you want to take longer to meander through a bookstore that is one of the (few) advantages bricks and mortar bookstores have. Time is important there too, but in the opposite way, hence the preponderance of cafés in bookstores or café/bookstores. If you feel hustled and harried by the staff to make a purchase and get out, that’s poor service.

If it takes ages for something to arrive from Amazon a large part of the point of Amazon is lost. By ages, I mean more than about a week. That’s the Amazon equivalent of going into a physical bookstore and asking for a book only to hear the response, “We don’t have it in stock, but we can order it for you – it will be here in about four to six weeks”. (Incidentally, does any bookstore worker not think at that moment, “They’re thinking Amazon.com right now”?). Delivery time for Amazon makes almost the entire difference – it’s one of the key advantages along with the enormous inventory that is the pay off to the disadvantage of not being able to browse the physical books.

Amazon is a classic case of a service that is deeply susceptible to the level of service its partners can provide. The Royal Mail, once the envy of the world’s postal services, has gone from bad to worse over the past couple of decades and today the Guardian reports that they have just lost a £25m contract with Amazon because of the current strike. They already lost a smaller £8m contract in the last strikes.

So much is fairly obvious albeit sad. What was particularly interesting from a service design perspective is that the Home Delivery Network (a private, rival service to the Royal Mail) have said, “We are seeing a number of our customers preparing to start marketing their deliveries as free of Royal Mail risk”. When your service is so bad that avoiding using it becomes a selling point for another service or product, you know you have big problems.

Share this:
  • TwitThis
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon
  • email

{ 0 comments }

Regular readers of Playpen may have notice things have been somewhat quiet around here recently. There are two reasons for this. One is that Twitter has made an unexpected impact on my blogging. I was quite surprised by this, because it is somewhat of a symbiotic relationship, especially as my tweets are over there in the sidebar. I am yet to make a judgement about whether it is a positive thing that I can comment on something in 140 characters or whether it shows an ever diminishing level of caring about putting together a coherent piece of writing. I’m sure this has affected others out there – has twittering bled your blog dry?

logo-hslu.gif

The other, rather more exciting reason, is that I started a new post as a Research Fellow/Lecturer (professor with a small p to you folks in the USA) in Service Design at the Lucerne School of Art and Design, part of the Hochschule Luzern in Switzerland. As the title suggests, it is a mix of research and teaching. I am predominantly teaching on the Masters of Product Design and Management, but dip into a couple of BA courses too.

So, expect the posts here to tend a bit more towards services, but I have long seen interaction/experience design with the broader lens that service design affords, so I don’t imagine the content will radically change. Diving headlong into the bureaucracy that working in a public education institution, in another country (especially Switzerland) entails is in itself a pretty good opportunity to experience the complexity of service offerings both good and bad.

Share this:
  • TwitThis
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon
  • email

{ 3 comments }