B+W Letter Working Through Screens Book

WORKING
THROUGH

SCREENS
100 ideas for envisioning Application Concepting Series
No. 1
powerful, engaging,
and productive A publication of
FLASHBULB INTERACTION, Inc
user experiences
in knowledge work Also available in .html, “Idea Cards”
and 11’’X17” .pdf formats at
By Jacob Burghardt www.FlashbulbInteraction.com

This book is for my grandfather, William Wolfram, who
believed that the nature of work was changing into something
very different than what he had experienced at sea, in the
fields, and on assembly lines — and strongly encouraged
me to explore what it might mean.

FRONT MATTER | FRAMING THE PROBLEM

2
WORKING THROUGH SCREENS


The category of human efforts sometimes called “knowledge
work” is growing.

Knowledge workers are valued for their specialized intellectual
skills and their ability to act on and with complex information in
goal oriented ways.

In many contexts, the idea of knowledge work has become
almost synonymous with using a computer, to both positive and
negative effect.

Product teams creating computing tools for specialized workers
struggle to understand what is needed and to successfully
satisfy a myriad of constraints.

As a result of the design deficiencies in these interactive
products, people experience many frustrations in their working
lives.

Noticeable deficiencies, along with the ones that have invisibly
become the status quo, can lower the quality and quantity of
workers’ desired outputs.

With so many people in front of so many screens — attempting
to practice their chosen professions — these deficiencies have
real costs.

3


I’m going to do some So I’m ge�ng started Well, there’s one big
of my normal work on a normal work thing that I really
so you can see what I item that I tackle all don’t understand, but
mean about this new the �me... I can get around it...
so�ware applica�on
that I am supposed
to use all day...

INTERACTIONS PERFORMED

EXPERIENCED EFFORT

SUBJECTIVE SATISFACTION

+
+ + ++ +
PROGRESS TOWARD GOAL

4


Hmm, this part is just Done. But I s�ll can’t
too long and arduous arrive at the quality
compared to how I of work that I want,
used to do this... no ma�er what...

Needed
Mismatched Hard
Overly ﬂexible Typical
Awkwardly dynamic
Inconsistent Distracting
Boring Circuitous
Replaceable

+ + + + + +

8:12 ELAPSED TIME

5


+

6


Collectively, we have an infrastructural sense of what these
technologies can be that tends to limit our ability to imagine
better offerings.

Targeted improvements in the design of these tools can have
large impacts on workers’ experiences. Visionary design can
advance entire fields and industries.

At a basic level, applications can “fit” the working cultures that
they are designed for, rather than forcing unwanted changes in
established activities. They can augment rather than redefine.

When workers alter their culture to adopt a new computing tool,
it can be solely because that tool provides new meaning and
value in their practices.

Going further, elegantly designed applications can become a
joy to use, providing an empowering, connective sense of direct
action and a pleasing sensory environment for people to think
“within.”

Product teams can make significant progress toward these aims
by changing how they get started on designing their products
— by beginning with an emphasis on getting to the right design
strategy and design concepts long before getting to the right
design details.

It is time to start holistically envisioning exemplary new tools for
thought that target valuable intersections of work activity and
technological possibility.

7


Now I’ve got a new I feel like I make I s�ll run into confus-
applica�on for doing progress toward what ing spots and errors,
the same work, and I want to accomplish but it’s easier to get
let me show you how more quickly... around them...
much be�er it is by
comple�ng the same
task with this tool...

INTERACTIONS PERFORMED

EXPERIENCED EFFORT

SUBJECTIVE SATISFACTION

+ ++ +
+ ++ +
PROGRESS TOWARD GOAL

8


And I get to a be er Overall, this new
conclusion faster, tool feels like it just
which feels much belongs in how I
more empowering... think about my own
ways of working...

Wanted
Meaningful Engaging

Clearly targeted Extraordinary
Eye opening Dependable activity infrastructure

Domain grounded Mastery building
Irreplaceable Beautiful

+ +++ +
6:03 ELAPSED TIME

9


Extensive concepting,

based on intensive
questioning,

driving visionary,
collaboratively
defined strategies

for exemplary tools
for thought.

10


Suggestions for product teams:

Deliberately spend more time envisioning, at a high
level, what your interactive application could be and
how it could become valued infrastructure in work
activities.

Do not assume that a compelling knowledge work tool
will arise solely from the iterative aggregation of many
discrete decisions during the long haul of a product
development process.

Create a divergent ecosystem of concepts for your
product’s big picture and primary experiences.

Examine the potential value of reusing expected design
conventions — while at the same time ideating potential
departures and differentiated offerings.

Explore a breadth of directions and strategies before
choosing a course.

Plan on staying true to the big ideas imbedded in the
concepts that your team selects, while knowing that
those ideas will evolve along the way to becoming a
reality.

11



based on intensive
questioning,

driving visionary,
collaboratively
defined strategies

for exemplary tools
for thought.

12



Ask more envisioning questions, both within your team
and within your targeted markets.

Develop empathy for knowledge workers by going into
the field to inform your notions of what your product
could become.

Stimulate conversations with this book and other
sources relevant to the topic of mediating knowledge
work with technology.

Find and explore situations that are analogous to the
work practices that your team is targeting.

Keep asking questions until you uncover driving factors
that resonate.

Create visual models of them.

Focus your team on these shared kernels of under-
standing and insight.

Lay the groundwork for inspiration.

13



based on intensive
questioning,

driving visionary,
collaboratively
defined strategies

for exemplary tools
for thought.

14



Use design thinking to expand upon and transform your
product’s high level mandates and strategy.

Continually explore the strategic implications of your
team’s most inspiring ideas about mediating knowledge
work.

Make projections and connections in the context of key
trends and today’s realities.

Think end to end, as if your product was a service,
either literally or in spirit.

Build and extend brands based on the user experiences
that your team is striving to make possible — and how
your product will deliver on those promises.

Envision what knowledge workers want and need but
do not articulate when confronted with a blank canvas
or a legacy of unsatisfactory tools.

Invite workers to be your collaborators, maintaining a
healthy level of humility in the face of their expertise.

15



based on intensive
questioning,

driving visionary,
collaboratively
defined strategies

for exemplary tools
for thought.

16



Dive into the specific cognitive challenges of knowledge
workers’ practices in order to uncover new sources of
product meaning and value.

Set higher goals for users’ experiences.

Envision “flashbulb interactions” in targeted activities
— augmenting interactions that could make complex
conclusions clear or open new vistas of thought.

Explore how carefully designed stimuli and behaviors
within onscreen tools might promote emotional
responses that are conducive to attentive, focused
thinking.

Surpass workers’ expectations for the potential role
of computing in their mental lives.

Raise the bar in your targeted markets, and with it,
the bar for all knowledge work tools.

17


+

18


Extensive concepting, based on
intensive questioning, driving
visionary, collaboratively defined
strategies for exemplary
tools for thought.

This phrase embodies a suggested overall approach for product
teams envisioning new or improved interactive applications for
knowledge work.

In support of this suggested approach, this book contains 100
ideas — along with many examples and questions — to help
product teams generate design strategies and design concepts
that could become useful, meaningful, and valuable onscreen
offerings.

19

FRONT MATTER

Table of Contents

Preface 24

Introduction: The case for Application Envisioning 27

Primer on example knowledge work domains 46

A. EXPLORING WORK MEDIATION AND 52
DETERMINING SCOPE
A1. Influential physical and cultural environments 54
A2. Workers’ interrelations and relationships 57
A3. Work practices appropriate for computer mediation 60
A4. Standardization of work practice through mediation 63
A5. Interrelations of operation, task, and activity scenarios 66
A6. Open and emergent work scenarios 69
A7. Collaboration scenarios and variations 72
A8. Local practices and scenario variations 75
A9. High value ratio for targeted work practices 78

B. DEFINING INTERACTION OBJECTS 82
B1. Named objects and information structures 84
B2. Flexible identification of object instances 87
B3. Coupling of application and real world objects 90
B4. Object associations and user defined objects 93
B5. Object states and activity flow visibility 96
B6. Flagged variability within or between objects 99
B7. Object ownership and availability rules 102
B8. Explicit mapping of objects to work mediation 105
B9. Common management actions for objects 108
B10. Object templates 111

C. ESTABLISHING AN APPLICATION FRAMEWORK 114
C1. Intentional and articulated conceptual models 116
C2. Application interaction model 119
C3. Levels of interaction patterns 122
C4. Pathways for task and activity based wayfinding 125
C5. Permissions and views tailored to workers’ identities 128
C6. Standardized application workflows 131
C7. Structural support of workspace awareness 134
C8. Defaults, customization, and automated tailoring 137
C9. Error prevention and handling conventions 140
C10. Predictable application states 143

20

FRONT MATTER | TABLE OF CONTENTS

D. CONSIDERING WORKERS’ ATTENTIONS 146
D1. Respected tempos of work 148
D2. Expected effort 151
D3. Current workload, priority of work, and 154
opportunity costs
D4. Minimizing distraction and fostering concentration 157
D5. Resuming work 160
D6. Alerting and reminding cues 163
D7. Eventual habit and automaticity 166

E. PROVIDING OPPORTUNITIES TO OFFLOAD EFFORT 170
E1. Offloading long term memory effort 172
E2. Offloading short term memory effort 175
E3. Automation of low level operations 178
E4. Automation of task or activity scenarios 181
E5. Visibility into automation 184
E6. Internal locus of control 187

F. ENHANCING INFORMATION REPRESENTATION 190
F1. Coordinated representational elements 192
F2. Established genres of information representation 195
F3. Novel information representations 198
F4. Support for visualization at different levels 201
F5. Comparative representations 204
F6. Instrumental results representations 207
F7. Highly functional tables 210
F8. Representational transformations 213
F9. Simultaneous or sequential use of representations 216
F10. Symbolic visual languages 219
F11. Representational codes and context 222

G. CLARIFYING CENTRAL INTERACTIONS 226
G1. Narrative experiences 228
G2. Levels of selection and action scope 231
G3. Error prevention and handling in individual interactions 234
G4. Workspace awareness embedded in interactions 237
G5. Impromptu tangents and juxtapositions 240
G6. Contextual push of related information 243
G7. Transitioning work from private to public view 246

21


H. SUPPORTING OUTCOME EXPLORATION AND 250
COGNITIVE TRACING
H1. Active versioning 252
H2. Extensive and reconstructive undo 255
H3. Automated historical records and versions 258
H4. Working annotations 261

I. WORKING WITH VOLUMES OF INFORMATION _264
I1. Flexible information organization _266
I2. Comprehensive and relevant search _269
I3. Powerful filtering and sorting _272
I4. Uncertain or missing content 275
I5. Integration of information sources 278
I6. Explicit messaging for information updates 281
I7. Archived information 284

J. FACILITATING COMMUNICATION 288
J1. Integral communication pathways 290
J2. Representational common ground 293
J3. Explicit work handoffs 296
J4. Authorship awareness, presence, and contact 299
facilitation
J5. Public annotation 302
J6. Streamlined standard communications 305
J7. Pervasive printing 308

K. PROMOTING INTEGRATION INTO WORK PRACTICE 312
K1. Application localization 314
K2. Introductory user experience 317
K3. Recognizable applicability to targeted work 320
K4. Verification of operation 323
K5. Understanding and reframing alternate interpretations 326
K6. Design for frequency of access and skill acquisition 329
K7. Clear and comprehensive instructional assistance 332
K8. Seamless inter-application interactivity 335
K9. Directed application interoperation 338
K10. Openness to application integration and extension 341
K11. End user programming 344
K12. Trusted and credible processes and content 347
K13. Reliable and direct activity infrastructure 350

22


L. PURSUING AESTHETIC REFINEMENT 354
L1. High quality and appealing work products 356
L2. Contemporary application aesthetics 359
L3. Iconic design resemblances within applications 362
L4. Appropriate use of imagery and direct branding 365
L5. Iconoclastic product design 368

M. PLANNING CONNECTION WITH USE 372
M1. Iterative conversations with knowledge workers 374
M2. System champions 377
M3. Application user communities 380
M4. Unanticipated uses of technology 383

Glossary 386

Bibliography 393

About the author +
FLASHBULB INTERACTION, Inc. 399

23

FRONT MATTER

Preface

When I started the writing that eventually result- they do not develop a robust design strategy for
ed in this book, I was driven by a conviction that their application, let alone consider divergent high
some critical conversations seemed to be missing level approaches in order to create a compelling
from the development of new technologies for application concept. Instead, they seem to assume
knowledge workers. that useful, usable, and desirable products arise
solely from the iterative sum of many small defini-
I kept returning to the same four observations tion, design, and implementation decisions.
about how many real world product teams
operate: These observations would not carry much weight
if it was not for the current state of computing
1. Many product teams overlook common needs tools that are available to knowledge workers in
that knowledge workers have of their onscreen many vocations. Put simply, these products often
tools while at the same time developing un- contain vast room for improvement, especially in
needed functionality. These teams start with a highly specialized forms of work, where there are
seemingly blank slate, even when many valuable concrete opportunities to truly tailor technologies
product requirements could be explored based on to important activities. Highly trained individuals,
existing, proven understandings of how comput- working in their chosen professions, commonly
ing tools can valuably support knowledge work. spend unnecessary effort acting “on” and “around”
poorly conceived tools, rather than “through”
2. Many product teams’ everyday yet pivotal defi- them. The toll on performance and work outcomes
nition and design conversations do not sufficiently resulting from these extra efforts can be drastic
consider knowledge workers’ thought processes to individual workers, but since it is difficult to
or how a technology might influence them. While collectively recognize and quantify, the aggregate
individuals in these teams may occasionally use of these losses remains largely undetected within
terminology borrowed from cognitive psychology, organizations, professions, industries, and
the actual details of how a tool could meaningful- economies.
ly impact “thinking work” may not receive more
than a surface examination. I believe that current deficiencies in technologies
for knowledge work are strongly tied to our often
3. Many product teams struggle to understand low expectations of what it can mean to support
the knowledge work that they are striving to sup- complicated activities with computing. Our shared
port. Even when some of a team’s members have ideas of what constitutes innovation in this space
a strong empathy for targeted work practices, have, in many cases, become tightly constrained by
teams as a whole can have mixed levels of success our infrastructural sense of what these technolo-
meaningfully translating their cumulative under- gies can and should be. Too often, we are not see-
standing into overall models of how their tool ing the proverbial forest due to our shared focus on
could valuably mediate certain activities. These a small grove of trees. In our cultural accommoda-
shared models, when executed well, can guide the tion to what computing has come to “mean” in our
definition and development of a product’s many working lives, it seems that we may have lost some
particulars. Without them, resulting applications of our capacity for visionary thinking.
can become direct reflections of a team’s lack of
guiding focus. To regain this vision, product teams can spend
more time considering what it might actually take
4. Many product teams begin construction of final to support and build upon knowledge workers’
products with very limited notions of what their skills and abilities. Getting inside of these essential
finished product will be. Whether unintentionally problems can require teams to adopt goals that
or intentionally, based on prevailing ideologies, are more like those of the pioneers of interactive

24

FRONT MATTER | PREFACE

computing, who were driven by the potential for ideas present a supporting framework for teams
augmenting human capabilities with new tech- striving to see past unsatisfactory, “business as
nologies. When teams extend these pioneering usual” technologies in order to create compelling
ideas by applying them at the intersection of and meaningful tools for knowledge workers at
specific activities and working cultures, they can the forefronts of their fields.
discover a similar spirit of considered inquiry and
exploration. I look forward to hearing about how these ideas
hold up in the context of your own product
Higher order goals — aimed at creating tools for development challenges. My sincere hope is that
thought to be used in targeted work practices, this book provides some measure of inspiration
cooperative contexts, and technological environ- that leads you to envision tools that promote
ments — can lead product teams to ask very more powerful, engaging, and productive user
different questions than those that they cur- experiences. Knowledge workers — those who
rently explore during early product development. will opportunistically make use of the fruits of your
Through the critical lens of these elevated goals, efforts, if you are fortunate — deserve no less.
the four observations listed above can truly take
on the appearance of lost opportunities for Jacob Burghardt
innovation and product success. 1 Nov 2008, Seattle, WA
E - info@FlashbulbInteraction.com
I have personally experienced these lost op- P - 206.280.3135
portunities in my own career researching and
designing knowledge work tools for domains
such as life science, financial trading, and graphic
design, among others. Even with the best inten-
tions, in 20/20 hindsight, I did not always have
time to think through and apply some important
ideas — ideas that could have improved products’
design strategies and, in the end, enhanced
workers’ user experiences. There are simply so
many useful ideas for these complex, multifaceted
problems, and under the demands of real world
product development, time for questioning and
exploration nearly always passes too quickly.

Listening to other practitioners in the field, I know
that I am not alone in making these observations
and facing these challenges. And yet, when it
comes to accessible, practitioner oriented refer-
ences on these topics, there seems to be large
areas of empty space waiting to be filled.

This book is a foray into part of that empty space.
The 100 ideas contained within can act as shared
probes for product teams to use in formative
discussions that set the overall direction and
priorities of new or iteratively improved applica-
tions for thinking work. As a collection, these

25

FRONT MATTER | PREFACE

Acknowledgements Publication Information

Since this book feels more like a synthesis with a Working through Screens is the inaugural publica-
particular perspective than a completely origi- tion of FLASHBULB INTERACTION, Inc.
nal work, I would like to emphatically thank the
authors of all the publications that are included in This book is available for free in .html and .pdf at
the bibliography. I would particularly like to thank www.FlashbulbInteraction.com, where you can also
William Lidwell, Katrina Holden, and Jill Butler find an abbreviated “Idea Cards” version designed
— the authors of Universal Principles of Design: for use in product ideation exercises.
100 Ways to Enhance Usability, Influence Percep-
tion, Increase Appeal, Make Better Design Softcover copies of this book can be purchased
Decisions, and Teach through Design — which at minimum third party cost at:
was a key inspiration for the format of this work. http://stores.lulu.com/flashbulbinteraction

The following reviewers have provided invaluable All original contents of this publication are subject
comments on various drafts of this publication: to the Creative Commons license (Attribution-Non-
Liberty Harrington, Kristina Voros, Amii LaPointe, Commercial-ShareAlike http://creativecommons.
Myer Harrell, Aaron Louie, Brian Kuan Wood, org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/) unless otherwise
Jessica Burghardt, Matt Carthum, Matt Turpin, noted. Please attribute the work to:
Miles Hunter, Julianne Bryant, Eric Klein, Chris “Jacob Burghardt / FLASHBULB INTERACTION
Ziobro, Jon Fukuda, and Judy Ramey. Consultancy.”

I would also like to thank understanding friends
who spend long, internally motivated, solitary
hours working on personal pursuits. You made
this project seem not only possible, but like a
good idea.

26

FRONT MATTER

Introduction: The Case
for Application Envisioning
The Experience of Modern edge workers who will appear throughout this
Knowledge Work book:

In a growing number of contemporary work- An architect considers an alternate placement
places, people are valued for their specialized for an interior wall in order to improve the view
intellectual skills and their ability to act on and corridors within a building that she is design-
with complex information in goal oriented ways. ing. As she interactively visualizes a certain wall
There is a general sense that many types of placement within a 3D model of the building, she
work are becoming more abstract, specialized, pauses to consider its implications for a number
complex, improvisational, and cerebral. of the project’s requirements. She saves different
versions of her design exploration, adding working
Peter Drucker called the people that engage in notes on what she thinks of each design direction.
these types of work “Knowledge Workers.” Robert Once she has created several different directions,
Reich, the former U.S. Labor Secretary, used the she then uses the building modeling application to
term “Symbolic Analysts” to describe a similar realistically render each possibility, compare them
category within the workforce. More recently, in sequence, and review a subset of design options
Richard Florida has defined the characteristics with her colleagues.
of “the Creative Class.” All three of these terms
fall within roughly the same frame, emphasiz- A scientist sorts through the results of a recent
ing the commonality of inventing, producing, clinical study using an analysis application that
interpreting, manipulating, transforming, apply- automatically generates clear and manipulable
ing, and communicating information as principle visualizations of large data sets. She uses the tool
preoccupations of these workers. to visually locate interesting trends in the clini-
cal results, narrowing in on unusual categories of
The current experience of this purportedly new data at progressively deeper levels of detail. To
work — what it feels like to practice a highly better understand certain selections within the
trained profession or to simply earn a paycheck complex biological information, she downloads
— has a very different essential character than related reference content from up to date research
the type of work experiences that were available repositories.
just a generation or two ago. A large part of that
change in character is due to the extensive use of A financial trader works through transaction after
computing tools in these work practices. transaction, examining graphs of key variables and
triggering his trading application to automatically
In essence, the expansion of “knowledge work” accept other trades with similar characteristics. He
as a concept has been closely tied to the expan- uses his market information application to analyze
sion of computing. Interactive applications have trends so that he can make better decisions about
become woven into the fabric of vast territories uncertain and questionable deals. As he barrels
of professional activity, and workers are continu- through as much work as possible during his always
ously adopting new tools into previously “offline” too short trading day, he values how his tools pre-
areas. Although these tools are not the only focal vent him from making crucial errors while permit-
point for knowledge workers, they are becoming ting him to act rapidly and to great effect.
a point of increasing gravity as cultures of practice
continue to co-evolve with these technologies While these short descriptions are probably not
over time. representative of your own day to day activities, it
may be easy enough for you to imagine how essen-
Consider these example experiences, which are tial interactive applications could become in each
part of the working lives of three fictional knowl- of these cases. After long periods of accommoda-

27

FRONT MATTER | INTRODUCTION: THE CASE FOR APPLICATION ENVISIONING

tion, accomplishing many knowledge work goals In short, when interactive applications are at their
involves turning to a screen, controlling a cursor, thoughtfully envisioned best, they can become
entering data, and interacting with well known seemingly indispensable in knowledge work. At
and meaningful representations of information. their most visionary, these tools can promote user
Looking toward future technologies, it is likely experiences that provide a sense of mastery and
that most knowledge workers will perform at direct engagement, the feeling of working through
least some of their efforts within the bounds the screen on information and interactive objects
of a similar framework for some time to come. that become the almost palpable subjects of users’
intentions.

The Impacts of
Application Design Issues in Contemporary
Onscreen Tools
The design of these computing tools has the
potential to make massive impacts on working Unfortunately, many knowledge work products
lives. Unless knowledge workers are highly moti- present themselves as nowhere near their thought-
vated early adopters that are willing and able to fully envisioned best. Workers too often find that
make use of most anything, their experiences as many parts of their specialized computing tools
users of interactive applications can vary drasti- are not useful or usable in the context of their
cally. These differences in experience can largely own goals or the larger systems of cultural mean-
depend on the overall alignment of an individual’s ing and activity that surround them. Problematic
intentions and understandings with the specifics applications can continuously present workers with
of a tool’s design. Since the majority of the com- confusing and frustrating barriers that they must
puting applications in use at the time of writing traverse in order to generate useful outcomes.
were not created by the workers that use them, At their poorly envisioned worst, computing tools
this means that the product teams developing can — contrary to marketing claims of advanced
these applications contribute roughly half of this utility — effectively deskill users by preventing
essential alignment between user and comput- them from acting in ways that even remotely
ing artifact. To restate this common premise, resemble their preferred practices. Not exactly
“outside” technologists (of the stripe that would the brand promise that anyone has in mind when
likely be drawn to reading this book) often set they start the ball rolling on a new technology.
the stage for initial success or failure in workers’
experiences of their onscreen tools. If one was to summarize the status quo, it might
sound something like this: when it comes to
Direct alignment with an augmenting tool can interactive applications for knowledge work, prod-
cause surprising joy, or at least a sort of trans- ucts that are considered essential are not always
parent, “on to the next thing” sense of success. satisfactory. In fact, they may be deeply flawed in
Individuals and organizations can place a high ways that we commonly do not recognize given our
value on useful and usable products that sup- current expectations of these tools. With our
port workers’ limitations while at the same time collective sights set low, we overlook many faults.
enhancing their skills. Truly successful interac-
tive applications can provide users with tailored Poorly envisioned knowledge work applications
functionality that, among other things, facilitates can:
and enhances certain work practices, powerfully
removes unwanted effort through automation, Attempt to drive types of work onto the
and generates dynamic displays that make screen that are not conducive to being me-
complex relationships clear. diated by interactive computing as we know

28


it today. New applications and functional- them sufficient means to organize, visualize,
ities are not always the answer, and some navigate, search or otherwise make use of it.
work practices can be more effectively
Disrupt workers’ attentions, and the essen-
accomplished outside of the confines of
tial cognitive flow of intensive thinking work,
a computer.
with unnecessary content and distracting
Fail to reflect essential divisions of how messaging.
work is segmented within targeted orga-
Require workers to waste effort entering
nizations, forcing unwanted redefinition of
specifics and “jumping through hoops” that
individuals’ roles and responsibilities and
neither they nor their organizations perceive
creating new opportunities for day to day
as necessary.
errors in workers’ practices.
Force workers to excessively translate
Introduce new work processes that
their goals into the constraints of onscreen
standardize activities in unwelcome
interaction, even after extended use. All
ways. When technologies inappropriately
applications require their users to act within
enforce strict workflow and cumbersome
the boundaries of their functional options,
interaction constraints, these tools can
but certain constraints on basic actions may
force knowledge workers to create and
be too restrictive and cumbersome.
repeatedly enact unnecessarily effortful
workarounds in order to reach desired Introduce automation that actually makes
outcomes. work more effortful, rather than less. With-
out appropriate visibility into an automated
Lack clear conceptual models of what
routine’s processing, workers can be left
they, as tools, are intended to do, how they
with the difficult challenge of trying to
essentially work, and how they can provide
understand what has been automated, if
value. Inarticulate or counter intuitive con-
and where problems have occurred, and
ceptual models, which often stem from a
how to fix important issues.
product team’s own confusion about what
they are creating, can lead workers to de- Hide useful historical cues about how con-
velop alternate conceptions of application tent came to be in its current state, while
processes. These alternate models may in preventing workers from restoring certain
turn lead to seemingly undiagnosable information to its earlier incarnations. Tools
errors and underutilized functionality. without these capabilities can increase the
difficulty of recovering from errors, which
Present workers with confusing data
can in turn reduce creativity and scenario
structures and representations of informa-
oriented thinking in dynamic interactions.
tion that do not correlate to the artifacts
that they are used to thinking about in Leave workers without sufficient cues
their own work practices. To effectively about the activities of their colleagues.
use an application built upon unfamiliar This lack of awareness can lead to misunder-
abstractions, workers must repeatedly standings, duplicated effort, and the need
translate their own domain expertise to to extensively coordinate efforts outside the
match a system’s definitions. computing tool itself. These negative effects
may be found in intrinsically collaborative
Encourage a sense of information over-
work as well as efforts that are not typically
load by allowing individuals and organiza-
recognized as having cooperative aspects.
tions to create and store large volumes of
valuable information without providing Fail to support informal communication

29


in the contexts where knowledge work is at the same time salvaging tried and true methods.
accomplished, as well as provide direct Over time, the plasticity of mind and culture can
means for actively initiating conversations display a remarkable ability to overcome barriers
about key outputs. These omissions can and interweave “satisficed” benefits. After con-
make essential communication acts more siderable effort, established work arounds and
effortful, as workers attempt to create narrow, well worn paths of interaction can emerge.
common ground and tie their ideas back An uncompelling, difficult tool can become another
into application content while using sepa- necessary reality. The status quo continues, despite
rate, “outside” communication channels. the ongoing promise of augmenting specialized,
thinking work with computing.
Lack needed connectivity options for
individuals and organizations to tie the At the level of individual knowledge workers’
product’s data and functionalities into their experiences, attempting to adopt and use poorly
broader technology environments. Result- conceived applications can lead to frustration,
ing applications can become isolated anxiety and fatigue. These negative mental
“islands” that may require considerable states are not conducive to people successfully
extra effort in order to meaningfully accomplishing their goals or being satisfied in their
incorporate their capabilities and outputs working lives. Put another way, knowledge work
into important work activities. applications have the capacity to detract from the
pleasure and well being that people experience as
These example points, which represent just a part of working in their chosen professions. Knowl-
sampling of the many problems that can be found edge workers often do not contribute their efforts
in poorly envisioned knowledge work applica- solely for compensation in an economic sense;
tions, call attention to the fact that these potential their actions are intertwined with personal purpose
issues in users’ experiences are not “soft” consid- and identity. For this reason, a major deficiency in
erations. All of these points have implications for a knowledge work application can be said to have
workers’ satisfaction with a computing tool, their a different essential quality than a failure in, for
discretionary use of it, the quantity and quality of example, an entertainment technology. When a
their work outcomes, and their perceptions of a knowledge work application becomes an obstruc-
product’s brand. The sum of the above points can tion in its users’ practices, vital time and effort is
be viewed as a fundamental threat to the core wasted. Beyond the obvious business implications
goals of organizations that are seeking to adopt of such obstructions, it is difficult to sufficiently
new technologies as a means of supporting their underscore the potential importance of these
knowledge workforces. losses to individual workers, especially when
developing products for highly skilled individuals
who are seeking to make their chosen contribu-
Making Do with tions to society and the world.
the Status Quo
So how did we get here? Where did this status
Since many of today’s applications contain a quo come from? Why are these tools not better
mixture of both clear and direct functional op- designed? Why do the brand names of so many
tions and functionality that is frustrating, obtuse, knowledge work products conjure disdain, or
and effectively useless, knowledge workers often only a vague sense of comfort after having been
become skilled at identifying those portions of extensively used — instead of something more
technologies that demonstrate benefits relevant extraordinary? We can assume that no product
to their challenges. Individuals tend to weed out team sets out to deliver a poorly conceived tool to
problematic features from their practices, while knowledge workers. And yet, even with good inten-

30


tions, that is what many have done and continue user experiences has become a central exercise
to do. Ironically, even tools designed for niche, in the development of many of today’s success-
domain specific markets — which can represent ful brands and product strategies. Yet in the much
the most concrete opportunities to create truly “younger” and relatively distant disciplines that
refined tools for specific work practices — are not develop complex onscreen applications, the
immune to these problems. In fact, they may be potential for design’s strategic contributions
especially susceptible to them. has not been adequately recognized.

First Steps of Getting to Design
Application Design Details Too Quickly

Taking a step back, it can be useful to examine the At the end of a knowledge work product’s initiating
early, initiating steps that lead to the creation of conversations, when it appears that a project will
a knowledge work application. Plans for a new or become a funded and staffed reality, there is often
revised computing tool can arise in a variety of a strong desire from all involved to see “some-
ways, though there are some common patterns to thing” other than high level abstraction and textual
their early gestations. In general, a small core of description. The common response to this desire
initiators defines a product’s principle mandates is where foundational user experience problems
before a broader cross section of team members begin to crystallize. In a characteristic straight to
and disciplines are brought onto a project. These the details progression, teams quickly, instinctu-
early conversations may take on very different ally move from high level consideration of product
forms depending on, for example, whether a strategy into the smallest specifics of a product’s
product represents a disruptive technology or a definition, design, and implementation. Their
competitive entry into an established category of approach jumps abruptly from the global to the
knowledge work tools. In any case, teams’ invest extremely granular, without the connective tissue
some part of their formative discussions consider- of a holistic middle ground.
ing their offerings’ potential driving forces, brand
positioning, and underlying technological charac- Part of the reason for this jump in collective mind-
teristics. These efforts typically involve modeling set is an increase in team size. Left to their own
ideas about potential opportunities in targeted devices, newly added team members often
market segments, which often correspond to a gravitate toward the level of granularity that is
particular range of knowledge work specialties their primary focus during the extended course of
and organization types. product development. To a specialist, this makes
perfect sense. These detailed skills are what they
During this early initiation, product strategy are typically valued and promoted for, and their
efforts for knowledge work applications often narrow expert perspectives are presumably why
do not involve “design thinking” in any real sense. they are brought onto projects in the first place.
When faced with the complexities of scoping The problem with these assumptions is that, when
and conceiving a viable computing tool, design getting into details too soon and too narrowly,
ideation, at the time of writing, seems to typically specialists’ decisions may be under informed and
take a back seat role. This is in stark contrast to lacking a larger vector of creativity and guiding
many other types of products, especially outside constraints.
of computing, where design thinking is increas-
ingly being used as a key approach in early, initiat- The commonly cited maxim of the influential
ing conversations. One does not need to look very designer Charles Eames, “the details are not the
far to see how generative concepting of potential details, the details make the design,” is a useful

31


truism in the extended development of viable While specifying every detail of a complex interac-
computing applications for knowledge work. tive application before any implementation takes
After all, if a specific part of a user interface is place is also not generally considered a viable
missing important options for the work practices approach to product development, at the time of
that a tool is designed for, then its usefulness and writing, the pendulum seems to have swung too far
usability will suffer during real world interactions. in the direction of improvising design strategy. Pre-
Armed with this understanding, some technolo- vailing straight to the details ideologies are largely
gists immediately begin their journey away from out of step with the reality of resulting product
the vagaries of a product’s strategy toward outcomes. A survey of the inflexibilities, over
something more “real.” Without considering extended interaction frameworks, and scattered
how they might be stifling their own success conceptual models of contemporary knowledge
and innovations, these teams begin haphazardly work products in many domains can sufficiently
anticipating workers’ detailed needs and possible prove this point.
complaints as a means of sketching a satisfactory
concept for their product.
Adding Features Until
The path of the straight to the details progression “Magic Happens”
is predictable and common. Product teams enact-
ing this progression begin implementing without Behind the straight to the details progression is
the vector of a larger design strategy to guide a belief that a successful, even visionary, product
them through the many highly specific choices will somehow emerge from the sum of countless
that will inevitably follow. Their initial concep- detailed definition, design, and implementation
tion of their product is relatively simplistic, but decisions (see Figure 1 on page 34). In this view,
they believe that they can continually map out applications can evolve from a collection of some-
the complex specifics along the way, whether in what modular pieces, so long as the assemblage
diagrammatic illustrations, textual specifications, does not somehow “break” in the context of users’
or in working code. They move forward with the human limitations and cultural expectations. Keep
implicit assumption that interactive applications, working on the details and magic will happen —
being made of abstract computer language, are or so the assumption goes.
somehow highly malleable, and that all encom-
passing “fixes” can be made when needed. The larger gestalt of an interactive application
receives little or no consideration in this framing of
In reality, product teams creating knowledge work product development. Teams with this mindset do
applications rarely have the luxury of extensive not typically sketch diverse concepts for how their
downstream revisions, despite their deep seated creation could mediate work practice in appropri-
assumptions to the contrary. When they do enjoy ate, innovative, and valuable ways. To overstate the
the luxury of such changes, the cost of these case, many product teams believe that knowledge
revisions can be prohibitively high. For this rea- workers can be supported by directly giving them
son, key corrections, additions, and improvements what they want, adding details to a tool as needed
are all too often put off for the “next version,” or in a somewhat systematic manner. This approach
“next public release” with the assumption that may work for a while — until tools collapses along
users will be able to work their way around any fundamental, structural fault lines of conceptual
issues in the meantime. Facing limited resources clarity, information display, and meaningful
and complex challenges, many teams develop consistency.
distorted notions of what constitutes acceptable,
or even exceptional, quality and user experience.

32


Even though the magic happens expectation practices, they may unwittingly hold onto an initial,
often results in poorly designed computing tools roughly hewn, consensus view about knowledge
for knowledge work, the straight to the details workers’ activities and needs. This view can be-
progression may be successfully applied to other come their framing point of reference throughout
types of onscreen products. This might explain the development of their product, despite incom-
why many product teams creating knowledge ing information that could valuably transform it. In
work applications still hold on to these shared practice, the momentum of a disoriented group’s
assumptions — there are positive examples and initial concept for their computing tool often places
well known brand names that can serve as their certain ideas at the primary, driving core of what
reference points. When a product’s goals are is eventually developed and released. What the
relatively simple or very well characterized, as in a architect and psychologist Bryan Lawson calls a
highly established genre of application, teams can “primary driver” takes hold in their design outputs.
have a shared grounding without actively taking And in these cases, as end users of such products
time to grow that collective understanding. For can attest, magic does not often happen.
example, everyone in a typical product team prob-
ably understands how a collaborative calendar
application works, because they use them every Uncritical Reliance
day. If their understanding happens to be less on Pioneering Ideas
than complete, team members can probably
round out their views without too much difficulty If the pioneers of interactive computing had only
or discussion. A product team may even be able been thinking about detailed design decisions,
to create real innovations in this kind of applica- at the expense of the bigger picture, they would
tion by making incremental changes in small have likely never envisioned many of the conven-
details based on assumptions about unmet needs. tions that we commonly use today. For example,
Douglas Englebart, a pivotal figure in the pioneer-
ing era, has defined much of his working life based
Crucial Understanding Gaps on a series of epiphanies about how technology
could enhance human problem solving. During a
Tools for specialized knowledge work typically do time when computers were still primarily used for
not fit this sort of “make it up as we go” mold. batch process mathematical tasks, he envisioned
One of the main reasons is that product teams remarkable possibilities for the application of
inevitably have a difficult time understanding the computing to knowledge work. Of particular inter-
work practices that they are striving to mediate. est is Englebart’s astonishing 1962 description of
They do not tacitly know the cultures that they an architect using interactive computing as a fluid
are attempting to support. A base level of un- part of complex work practices, long before such
derstanding about larger systems of activity and a future had been realized. In his essay “Augment-
meaning is necessary in order to design a useful ing Human Intellect: A Conceptual Framework,”
tool that will be well suited for those systems. Englebart outlined how an architect might use
Teams need to understand what the architect a computer to review a symbolic representation
Eliel Saarinen spoke of as the “next larger con- of a building site; consider different scenarios in
text.” Software developers, for example, do not excavation and building design; refer to handbook
inherently know what it means to analyze clinical and catalog resources; locate windows so that light
research data, let alone how that data fits into the is not reflected into the eyes of passing drivers;
larger flows of activity within a research lab. examine the resulting structure to ensure that it
does not contain functional oversights; and store
When technologists find it difficult to understand the resulting work for later retrieval and annotation
the many specifics of foreign and elaborate work by stakeholders (the architectural examples used

33


FIGURE 1. COMMON APPROACH
TO ITERATIVE APPLICATION DESIGN

Begin creating individual Iteratively add more discrete
features, without spending parts, without considering
any time in the space overarching ideas about
between high level product how the application could
strategy and detailed mediate knowledge work
product implementation

34


Until magic happens, And a cohesive, or at least
somehow unifying the satisfactory, application
aggregation of separately supposedly emerges
created minutiae
In reality, such products
may be deeply and
frustratingly ﬂawed,
driving poor user experience
and lesser outcomes in
targeted knowledge work

35


throughout this book are an homage to Engle- require a carefully considered design strategy to
bart’s landmark application concept). tame their potential complexities into clear, useful,
and desirable simplicity.
Pioneers of interactive computing, such as Engle-
bart, did not have the luxury of working only at The very idea of design strategy implies the selec-
the detailed level of their emerging creations. tion of one direction from a pool of potential
They also set the vision and goals for their own approaches, yet the magic happens expectation
and subsequent generations of technological restrains breadth and ideation by promoting a
development. Looking objectively at the conver- narrow track of implemented reality. In essence,
sations taking place in product teams today, it teams following the straight to the details progres-
appears that many technologists are relying very sion are practicing single vision and concept design.
heavily on these and other proceeding foun- The essential, elemental “shapes” of their products
dations. Not on the intellectual spirit of these are the shapes that happen to unfold in front of
foundations, but on their literal conventions. them after the sum of many small decisions. They
As knowledge work applications have become deemphasize a larger type creativity, which in turn
standardized and commonplace within technolo- reduces possibilities for useful and compelling
gists’ worldviews, it seems that we may have all innovation.
become limited by a shared, infrastructural sense
of what these tools can and should be. People So how can product teams creating interactive ap-
creating these products have, to some extent, plications for knowledge work embrace this larger
stopped examining them through a critical lens type of creativity? If the straight to the details
that could uncover important new possibilities. progression, the magic happens expectation, and
As they continue to copy and tweak existing single vision and concept design characterize the
standards, we become increasingly accustomed mindset that eventually leads to problematic or
to a certain rate of change and a certain level of failed computing tools, what mindset can teams
generic, all purpose design. adopt to avoid these pitfalls?

While vernacular evolution certainly has its place,
repetition of familiar patterns is clearly not the Introducing
entire picture of exceptional design process. Application Envisioning
Knowledge work tools can be much more than
the sum of their discrete functional parts. A sole Generally speaking, product teams can cultivate
focus on detailed salvaging and assembling of the a perspective of targeted yet open exploration,
past leaves no room for other, important pursuits. without analysis paralysis. They can spend more
If product teams do not explore different strate- time in the space between product origination
gies for their application’s overall approach to and product implementation. They can create an
mediating work, how will they imagine new tools environment where divergence and a multiplicity
that truly and valuably fit into workers’ specialized of ideas are valued in their discussions. They can
thought processes and cultures? forgo an early emphasis on specifics by creating
abstract models that visualize their understandings
and outline potential spaces of design possibility.
Embracing a More They can ask more questions in their targeted mar-
Strategic Creativity kets and sketch novel concepts for how their prod-
ucts could play a role in knowledge work, while
Appropriate and exciting concepts for knowledge documenting tangible evidence of their ideas.
work tools are built on holistic vision, not just They can balance top down decision making with
pattern matching and incremental iteration. They bottom up input from knowledge workers in order

36


to synthesize singular design strategies. These in their worlds. While immersed in the activities
strategies can embody a strong brand positioning that they are striving to mediate with comput-
and the grounding of a team’s best application ing, teams can uncover unmet needs and other
concept, assembled from a core set of sketched important insights for design strategy. This immer-
functionalities that target a carefully chosen scope sion may also lead them to start thinking about
of work practices. their product as a service, either literally or in
spirit, which can highlight new areas for innovation
This suggested approach can be summarized by through ongoing, networked connection. Teams
the following phrase, which appears in the open- may take a sense of partnership with targeted
ing pages of this book: workers so far as to invite them to become collabo-
rators, maintaining a healthy level of humility in the
Extensive concepting, based on intensive face of their expertise.
questioning, driving visionary, collaboratively
defined strategies for examplary tools for Another process suggestion is for product teams
thought. to look outside of the work that they are target-
ing in order to cast new light on their envisioning
Is there a repeatable methodology or process questions and their emerging design concepts.
to advance this change in mindset and general While pioneering figures of interactive computing
approach? Not in any strict sense, because these had to work from an essentially blank slate, today’s
explorations are very emergent and freeform, technologists do not have to start from square one
despite their focused nature. However, a name for when they think about what it might mean to aug-
this period between project initiation and project ment certain thought processes and activities with
implementation could allow teams to effectively computing. There is a growing body of research
plan for it. The term application envisioning and critical perspective that teams can use as
suggests an early, separate interval in product lenses for making sense of these complex, multifac-
development in which teams can intentionally and eted design problems. In order to extract potential
collaboratively consider potential design strate- strategic principles, teams can examine comput-
gies and design concepts for their computing tool, ing tools that have been successfully adopted into
rather than sliding down a largely unconsidered similar activity contexts within other types of work
course (see Figure 2 on the next page). practice. Advanced analogies to products in other
domains can lead to inspiration that may fuel truly
Application envisioning can allow teams to culti- novel solutions that draw upon seemingly
vate empathy for targeted knowledge workers and unrelated fields of endeavor.
their worlds, lay the ground work for inspiration,
explore diverse questions and ideas about what The idea of application envisioning has strong
their product could be, and develop a shared, big parallels to mindsets found in other, older design
picture view — with the assumption that many disciplines, whose practitioners more commonly
important details will need to be fleshed out apply design thinking in strategic ways. For ex-
along the way to a completed release. ample, product teams creating computing tools
for knowledge work can learn a great deal about
One (increasingly routine) process suggestion for envisioning new technologies from the successful
application envisioning is that this early, explor- practices of the best industrial design teams. These
ative time presents a significant opportunity for teams also shape peoples’ daily lives through their
product teams to get out of their offices and into creations, albeit with a focus on the mass pro-
the field. Teams can strive for “what it’s like” duced, physical embodiment of material culture.
understanding of knowledge workers’ current Industrial designers typically take time early in their
experiences by directly observing and engaging projects to explore different concepts so that they

37


FIGURE 2. APPLICATION ENVISIONING
APPROACH TO DESIGN

C

Q
C
Q

C

Spend more time in the Meaningfully question what
space between high level it could mean to mediate
product strategy and certain knowledge work
detailed product activities with technology:
implementation observing and talking with
targeted workers,
collaboratively modeling
the problem space,
and sketching diverse
design concepts

38


C

C

C

Strategically synthesize Then move forward with your
the ﬁttest overarching chosen design strategy and
vision and concept design concepts, expanding
for your product from upon details, iteratively
among an ecosystem implementing and gathering
of envisioned futures further input

39


can divine the “right” overarching direction for knowledge work computing. Flashbulb interactions
their product, rather than immediately honing in are a branch of sorts off of the term “flashbulb
on and elaborating a single solution. These de- memories,” coined in 1977 by Roger Brown and
signers often conduct various forms of research, James Kulik in the psychology literature. A flash-
synthesizing models of their problem space before bulb memory is a recollection that stands out as
moving forward into design ideation. Once they a clear and pivotal moment, a punctuated experi-
begin ideating, they typically sketch thumbnail ence in the compilation of one’s past. In a similar
after thumbnail of potential options, long before vein, a flashbulb interaction is one of those rare
they even consider realistic renderings or exact- moments when an interactive application impacts
ing specifications. From these early explorations a knowledge worker in some profoundly positive
in “design research,” industrial design teams can way, such as making a complex conclusion clear
uncover important constraints, possibilities, and or opening up a new vista of thought.
languages for their product. They can discover
potential emotional connections with end users Product teams can explore how their computing
and gain empathy for the context of a success- tools might promote flashbulb interactions by
ful offering and brand, all of which puts them in beginning their projects with these high level
strong position to define singular and compelling questions:
design strategies.
What are the big picture problems that
knowledge workers currently face in their
The Higher Goals work practices? What mental work is
of “Flashbulb Interactions” currently difficult?
How might our application transform ab-
Envisioning a diverse range of appropriate pos- stract and taxing mental work into dynamic,
sibilities for a product is not an easy task. Even highly visual, direct, and appealing interac-
with a shared emphasis on a multiplicity of ideas, tions?
practitioners of all design disciplines sometimes
face the lure of literal, small scale iteration of How could our interactive application help
known patterns when more innovative responses knowledge workers accomplish the best
could be appropriate, valuable, and feasible. work of their professional lives? What
Application envisioning efforts can represent would those outcomes look like?
a fundamental change in how product teams How could our application support highly
define and design interactive applications, but valued work outcomes that could not be
this change alone may not be enough to arrive at attained without its functionalities?
exceptional tools for knowledge workers. With-
out higher order goals that aim to truly augment How could our application reduce or elimi-
peoples’ intellectual skills and abilities, applica- nate routine tedium in knowledge workers’
tion envisioning can become just another phase in experiences, while allowing them to use
product development, without any of the in- their expertise in new and valuable ways?
tended, strategic payoffs. A team’s own infrastruc-
How could our application foster and clarify
tural grounding in the conventions of computing
useful communication and collaboration?
can easily stifle threads of divergent, meaningful
concepting. The gravity of the known can easily How could our application promote a sense
preclude more creative questions and proposals. of confident power and uninterrupted,
focused engagement?
A new term may be useful to product teams as
they attempt to uncover new sources of value in How might the transition to using our ap-

40


plication be a pleasurable experience that details, can be crucial for developing truly success-
workers will remember for years to come, ful computing tools in this space. Product teams
especially when they reflect on how they that embrace early envisioning as a central exercise
used to accomplish the same goals? in application development, along with significantly
elevated goals for user experiences, can generate
These questions are a direct attack on low expec- appropriate and innovative possibilities for emerg-
tations of technologies for knowledge work. They ing generations of knowledge work tools. By in-
contain an optimism that is similar to pioneering tensely questioning what it could mean to mediate
questions that lead to the creation of interac- specific thought processes and work practices with
tive computing, but they can be applied to the an interactive application, these teams can develop
grounded particulars of specific challenges that tools that deliver more enjoyable and relevant
product teams face today. Most importantly, experiences, better work outcomes, improved
when technologists have asked these questions, brand loyalty, and other valuable results.
they may find it difficult to fall back on literal,
small scale iteration of known design patterns,
knowing full well that more innovative responses Using This Book
could be appropriate, valuable, and feasible.
This book is a tool for product teams to use as they
Product teams are not likely to know if and when envision new or iteratively improved knowledge
they have generated design strategies and con- work applications. It presents 100 ideas that can
ceptual sketches that could result in products that remind teams of common factors for the design
meet these aspirations, but that sort of absolute of extraordinary computing tools, helping them
decision making is not the point of conducting to generate a greater diversity of sketched models,
these inquiries. Instead, teams can pose these frameworks, and concepts. Each concisely pre-
and other questions about flashbulb interactions sented envisioning idea is a specific consideration
in order to take their eyes off of the conventional for early, formative conversations about what an
state of knowledge work computing and begin application might become. These random access
considering potential narratives for exceptionally topics are intentionally enmeshed and overlap-
positive user experience. This change in perspec- ping, not mutually exclusive. The categorization of
tive can uncover surprising ideas and design the 100 ideas sketches an overall framework and is
constraints that, in turn, can help teams to better intended to improve their collective accessibility as
understand deep seated opportunities that their an envisioning reference. The resulting collection
application might address, as well as what those is a practitioner oriented synthesis that can expand
solutions might look like. the range of questions that product teams explore
as they generate potential design strategies and
design concepts — inherently raising their shared
Summary of Case expectations for their products’ positive impacts
for Application Envisioning on knowledge work.

To summarize, contemporary computing tools for The 100 ideas themselves can be traced to a range
knowledge work often contain significant design of sources and perspectives in product strategy,
deficiencies — both recognized and overlooked human factors, human computer interaction,
— that detract from people’s working lives. systems analysis, industrial design, interaction
Looking beyond the current state of these tools, design, information architecture, usability research,
interactive computing has remarkable potential computer science, and other professional special-
for improving thinking work. An early emphasis on ties. Many of the ideas are rooted in commonly
design strategy and design concepts, not design cited considerations and guidelines, though they

41


have been framed here specifically for use while Stakeholders and influencers in applica-
envisioning computing tools for knowledge work. tion envisioning can use these ideas to drive
Some of these commonly cited points call out spe- product teams toward a broader conversa-
cific functionalities that are currently available in tion about what it might mean to valuably
a subset of contemporary products, while others augment specific types of knowledge work.
touch upon broader connections to the techno-
Students may find this survey of factors in-
logical contexts that workers’ practice within. This
formative, gaining a sense for the potential
book also borrows liberally from those authors
breadth of considerations that can influence
who have put forward ideas that have advanced
the design of these computing tools.
my own work as a practitioner providing research,
strategy, and design services. These publications
can be found in the bibliography. Beyond com-
monly cited ideas and valued references, a num- Book Approach and Exclusions
ber of the 100 ideas can be traced back to specific
stories from real world product teams. These Although much of the text is written as if the
envisioning ideas were considered assumptions reader is part of product team designing a new
in some groups of technologists and missing in knowledge work application, the same ideas can
others groups in a way that pointed to their value. apply when revising or extending an existing tool.
Similarly, the tone — but not the primary informa-
A variety of audiences may find the 100 ideas in tion — of this book often reflects the interests of
this book useful: product teams working in commercial contexts.
Please note that this book’s ideas might be just as
Product managers and other leaders applicable to tools created by an open source com-
within organizations can use these ideas to munity or developed internally within knowledge
promote innovative design strategies and work organizations.
to inspire their teams to set higher goals
for product success. 100 ideas is a very round number, and it points to
the limitations of this book. Just as there is no set
Researchers investigating the character- recipe for effective product development, there
istics, practices, and potential techno- are many other, equally valid ideas for envision-
logical desires of certain populations of ing interactive applications for knowledge work.
knowledge workers can use these ideas to The ideas in this book were selected due to their
outline a broader range of questions for potential impacts in a wide range of application
their studies. envisioning conversations. Many of the ideas rep-
Definers of interactive applications can use resent generally important considerations that are
these ideas as probes to generate models commonly overlooked in contemporary products.
and stimulate strategic thinking in work- That being said, some of the ideas will presum-
shops and other requirements elaboration ably be much more important for specific product
efforts. contexts than others. None of the 100 ideas are
universals or do-or-die edicts. Please take them or
Designers of interactive applications can leave them, depending on the situation you find
use these ideas to identify important user yourself in and your belief in their value.
experience factors for different activity
contexts, to sketch a broader range of de- The reader will find few mentions of specific tech-
sign concepts, and to make more informed nologies in this book, other than frequent refer-
decisions about design strategy in this ences to certain genres of networked applications
space. used in architecture, clinical research, and financial

42

B+W Letter Working Through Screens Book

B+W Letter Working Through Screens Book

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (18)

Destaque

Destaque (6)

Semelhante a B+W Letter Working Through Screens Book

Semelhante a B+W Letter Working Through Screens Book (20)

Último

Último (20)

B+W Letter Working Through Screens Book