“10 principles for design in the age of AI” and other edicts

Not a fan of Yves Béhar or self-promotion packaged as a high-falutin’ design manifesto, and feeling generally ornery, so just one-sentence reactions:

1. Design solves an important human problem

There are millions of design challenges, not every design does or needs to solve an “important human problem”.

2. Design is context specific (it doesn’t follow historical cliches)

Yes, design is contextual, but some contexts benefit from historical references and familiarity for fast and wide adoption, e.g. iPhone intro.

3. Design enhances human ability (without replacing the human)

Some design problems are better solved by getting the human out of the equation; we’re not work animals.

4. Good design works for everyone, everyday

There’s pretty much nothing that “works for everyone, everyday“.

5. Good tech and design is discreet

Being discreet and solving a design problem can be orthogonal.

6. Good design is a platform that grows with needs and opportunities

Not all design needs to be a platform and not all growth is beneficial in the long run.

7. Good design brings about products and services that build long-term relationships (but don’t create emotional dependency)

The driver of manufactured “emotional dependency” isn’t always design; it’s often a business model that requires it, e.g. Facebook, Zynga, Candy Crush, etc.

8. Good technology design learns and predicts human behavior

Algorithms are by definition exclusionary and mostly normative: “learning” and “prediction” aren’t without a price, e.g. aggressive surveillance by Facebook, Amazon, Google, etc.

9. Good design accelerates new ideas

Not all design requires elaborate contemplation, especially for commodity products.

10. Good design removes complexity from life

Complexity is in the eye of the designer and removal is normative, e.g. Trumpworld.

Incidentally, much of this has nothing to do with “AI” brutally slapped onto the title.

Follow Kontra on Twitter  Follow Kontra on Twitter

Obfuscation by disclosure: a lawyerly design pattern

This is not earth shattering news. Not even news per se. It’s what you get if you were to slow down the insane rush of ‘news’ just a split second to see how the sausage is made. In this instance, how the news (Comcast acquisition of TimeWarner) is packaged, from a quick, high-level design point of view.

What we have here is a legal document dressed as a press release masquerading as a blog post presented at a corporate website in a section called “ComcastVoices: A Place For Conversations With Comcast”. In other words, it’s lobbying collateral raised to the level of public conversation.

(tl;dr: According to Comcast, the merger is “pro-sumer” if you “get past some of the hysteria,” it’s “approvable” by the regulators and won’t “reduce consumer choice at all”. Will it raise prices? “not promising that they will go down or even that they will increase less rapidly.” Given the historical record of the industry, it’s Comedy Central material.)

comcast banner

Unless you’re in this industry, you’ll likely never read it: it’s 2,480 words. If you’re a civilian and do read it, you won’t understand most of it. It’s not meant for you. How do you know that? If you look at the large introductory banner (above) you get your first design clue: “public interest benefits and undertakings”. It highlights the good stuff: “public,” “interest” and “benefits”. All good. How about “undertakings”? Well, as a promise of potential future positive actions, it sure beats “anti-trust concerns”. Since “public interest benefits and undertakings” is the only part highlighted in color in what’s otherwise an ocean of gray type, you can read this framing statement and be done with it. It perfectly encapsulates the rest: This merger is good for you. Any questions you may have will be taken care of. Thanks for stopping by.

Of course, if you’re really careful, you’ll also notice that it’s bylined by David L. Cohen not just as Executive Vice President (which is what he uses pretty much everywhere else and most notably at the official Comcast Executive Biographies org-chart) but also as Chief Diversity Officer. Yes, “Diversity”. Now you know you’ve really hit on the corporate heavy-gun of choice against discrimination, anti-trust and class warfare charges.

It would be very tempting, at this point, to go into the sausage factory and do a point-by-point walkthrough dealing with the creation of a media/internet/communications colossus that’ll dominate a third of the nation and all the anti-competitive network effects of such consolidation, but that too would be old news. Also, I promised this would be quick, high-level and design oriented.

If you read a lot of contracts or are involved in writing corporate legalese, you already know that it’s important to segregate the good parts from the bad and the mundane, even in those droning tomes set in monospaced fonts like the ubiquitous Times Roman or Courier. Type size, line length, leading, margins, bullets, lists and boldface can subtly lead the reader to pay unequal attention to selected parts. Of course, it’s best when this is done with a delicate touch for maximum surreptitious effect. Like so:

pro

It’s all pro, it’s all good. “Benefits” repeated 4X? Check. Segmented and bulleted? Check. Boldfaced talking points? Check. Inviting? Check. But what about the cons?

cons

Well, we already lost the boldface emphasis and the sound-bite friendly talking points. First comes “certain competitive concerns might be raised.” (“Might be” as if this M&A deal will sail through without any competition/anti-trust questions?) Then comes the yes-but mental priming before we get to deal with “certain competitive concerns”. (Not as memorable as the pro section above, is it?)

But if you really want to lose your audience, you’d best bring out the biggest gun of all: the text-soup with no paragraphs, no segmentation, no bullets, no highlights, no boldface, no nothin’. And dare your readers to read it…forget understanding or recalling any of it.

app1

app2

“Important Information” and “Cautionary Statement”. So “important” and so “cautionary” as to be served as text-soup. Unfortunately, they are not for the “benefit” of the corporation, so glance-and-forget-it.

Am I being naive here? After all, this is a corporation putting its best foot forward, isn’t it? I know. (In another life, I’ve done this for some of the largest corporations in the world.) My point is actually as obvious as it’s depressing: perversely, there is good news in all this. Design works, however evil it may be.

Follow Kontra on Twitter

Can robots write sports previews?

Considered a creative skill, writing has long been seen as mostly immune to automation and commoditization — the seemingly inevitable end-state of anything touched by the Internet. Perhaps no longer.

What’s the score?

One of the more ubiquitous writing genres is sports reporting. Countless publications, portals, aggregators and distributors in print, radio, TV and Internet cover team rosters, game previews, schedules, results and all manner of short notices from Little League to college games to professional sports. An army of writers are routinely tasked to generate the base content for this wide spectrum of sports coverage.

Here’s a recent example. Despite having been promoted as championship contenders this year but currently being at the very bottom of the NBA standings, Brooklyn Nets and NY Knicks recently met. The day before the game, as is customary, a “preview” of the upcoming game for general syndication had to be written. Something with a lede like this:

Lede1

Now remember, there are games in all sports. At all levels. Across the entire world. Every single day. There are also daily and and hourly developments to be covered in finance, weather, healthcare, marketing, real estate, politics, entertainment, transportation, technology and myriad other fields. There’s always been an insatiable demand for expository writing across the board. While domains are very different, to an analytical eye all such data-driven writing share two important traits: they’re very structured and highly automatable. Everything in the game preview above is simple prose, wrapped around stored data, shown in blue here:

Lede2

It turns out one NBA game preview is pretty much the same as any other similar game. We could structurally separate parts that can be substituted for different data about the other 28 teams and roughly the same compositional logic:

Lede3

If we can now plug in team-specific names, places and data wherever there’s one of those blue-bracketed placeholders above, we could customize a game preview so specifically to a given event that I’m confident 95% of the reading public couldn’t tell if those sentences were composed by a human writer or an algorithm, like the one I pseudo-reverse-engineered and highly simplified below:

Lede4

Fortunately, or unfortunately depending on your perspective and profession, such algorithmic-writing is not some hovering, hyperlooping fantasy. Here’s the actual preview that ran across many sites on the Internet and elsewhere before the game:

Full Preview

And syndicated in one of the biggest such venues, Yahoo Sports:

Human Version

Who’s your daddy?

See the non-human byline below the headline, Automated Insights? That’s one of the new generation of companies involved in algorithmic writing. There are, and will be, others. For the initiated, the technology is quite straight forward. Often structured data is the gating factor, not compositional technology. Parsing and conditional templating technology is well understood by now. It’s tedious but low-scale pieces could be done with procedural programming, larger ones with rules engines and truly scalable and flexible ones with semantic coupling of the domain specific data.

In fact, many aspects of the writing itself is amenable to conditional embellishment of the parts of speech. For example, in the piece above, we could have pre-programmed a list of synonyms for “struggled” and picked a substitute randomly or one specific to geography, audience or sports. Lexical stylization can indeed get very sophisticated through contextual or randomized algorithms. Management of such conditional logic and metadata at scale has been possible for a couple of decades. When composing a personalized investment report or answering a question on your iPhone, your broker and Siri (though using different technologies underneath) already do something similar.

The advantage

In our example, the day before the game there was another “Knicks-Nets Preview” written by a human, Associated Press basketball writer Brian Mahoney, also syndicated in Yahoo Sports. The two pieces clearly serve different purposes. Mahoney’s article is much longer, as well as being significantly more detailed, colorful and analytical. Automated Insights’s preview is all about brevity, information, timeliness and, ultimately, volume, coverage and cost-effectiveness. In one millionth of the time it takes Mahoney to write one of his NBA previews, Automated Insights can generate previews for all the games not just in NBA but in all sports, anywhere on the planet, as long as there’s underlying data. And in a domain like sports, there’s plenty of data.

The differentiating cost of algorithmic writing is nearly all front-loaded on template and conditional logic programming. When done properly, this can obviate post-production fact checking and proof reading. Once set up, these pieces can be auto-produced when underlying data changes or when schedules are triggered. Thus the marginal cost of iterative articles approaches zero.

The day has arrived

Clearly, programmed robots can in fact write sports previews. And many other types of writing suitable for algorithmic automation. As is the case with the Internet, this will displace a lot of writers and also create concomitant technology jobs elsewhere.

It would be easy to dismiss this as procedural, utilitarian writing that doesn’t share much with literary prose. Granted. But such competition is not the focus of algorithmic writing. Not yet, anyway. Given enough nouns, verbs and associations in a specific knowledge domain, you’d be surprised how close you can come in compositional “believability” even today. Tomorrow, don’t be surprised if your next textbook or travel guide or cookbook is written mostly by domain-specific algorithms. And welcome to the [“brave” | “splendid” | “efficient” | “fearful” | “faceless” | “decimating”] new world of algorithms…eating yet another profession!

Follow Kontra on Twitter

You might also be interested in:
Is Siri really Apple’s future? and Can Siri go deaf, mute and blind?

29 shades of insult to injury

For advertising agencies two critical moments are when the team pitches to get a new account and when it finally presents its creative solution after weeks of work to start production. How many “options” should be shown to the client at this juncture is a matter of creative-process folklore.

There’s always the good old triple: “good, better, best” a.k.a. “throw-away, can-live-with, must-sell”. Some would go further than three. It’s not uncommon for boutiques to bet on just one solution and try to convince the client. Whether it’s one, three or six, I bet no one has ever heard of 29 options. Unless you work at Yahoo.

A new CEO looking for a quick turnaround getting company logo redesigned? American as apple pie. Some succeed, some fail and most never get more than a week’s worth of traction. Not a big deal, if you just have a press conference, a happy photo-op and your designer gushing over the “how we did it” part in some design pub. (Especially double-delicious if it’s the CEO who’s doing the write-up!) These are as harmless as they are unavoidable.

But 29 days of unrelenting assault on the design sensibilities of the few who cared? Unfruitful. Yahoo’s intention wasn’t crowd-voting or crowd-sourcing its next logotype after 18 years. The crowd couldn’t do anything about the options. So it was a one-way presentation of five horrid letters plus a punctuation mark day after day for a month. And at no point the crowd could cry uncle.

Yahoooptions

What then is Yahoo telling us?

We don’t care: We think logotype design is a frivolous activity. Since the goal of what it needs to be isn’t quite clear to us, we can post 29 superfluous variations in as many days. Hey, if you challenge us, we could algorithmically generate 365 options in one hour, one day, one year or until you surrender.

We know we should care: We care about logotype design, it represents our brand. We want people to know that we’re changing Yahoo, the company. The crowd can’t yet see the change fully but they can see the logotype change before their eyes. Since the logotype represents our brand which represents our company…well, you get our drift.

More is less: Look, we already had the logotype design we wanted weeks ago. We had interns come up with a few dozen variations and we let you see just 29 of them. You have no idea what the rest looked like. You’re welcome.

We’re not pros at this: We can’t shout from the rooftops. We don’t have ad budgets the size of Samsung’s or even Microsoft’s. Fine, we probably have more web traffic than both combined to expose people to anything we wanted, but we didn’t bother figuring out how we could use that traffic to have them look at what actually matters: who we are and what we want to accomplish as a company. (OK, that would have been dicey because, frankly, we still haven’t figured that out yet.)

See if we care: Yes, we know we could have done things differently. For example, we could have:

  • respected the design community and the digerati by serving them something serious for a month so that they could become catalysts to positive conversations about our company on a daily basis. (We may still have to recruit a few of those creative types, after all.)
  • tastily presented daily videos and sketches of 29 different designers discussing our logo, brand and company.
  • hosted these logotype options at one specific Yahoo property per day (we have dozens of properties) to draw much needed attention to them.
  • set up a million-dollar (non-binding) logotype contest (with a nominal $29 entry fee to keep out the riffraff) to attract serious designers and design firms. Cheap.
  • video streamed the final selection process, with a few mega-celebs thrown in to attract a crowd and even serve a few ads (or promos for our properties) in the process to boot.
  • had the sensibility to not come up with an anemic rehashing of the old logotype, sans serifs but now with bevels (bevels!) like it was the go-go ’90s.

Yahoologos

It’s a logotype for crying out loud: Yes, we could have done a lot of different things besides throwing 29 disparate high school lettering projects on the internets for a month to see if anyone cared. But that would have required adult supervision for design and, honestly, we don’t care that much.

Now you know.

*

1. I’d love to see Yahoo succeed, I’ve been using many of their services for years.

2. You might also be interested in “Ordered Information” is not a paint job where we consider the sorry spectacle of Yahoo Finance design.

An interim solution for iOS ‘multitasking’

There are many counterintuitive ‘rules’ in product design, these two are among the most intractable:

• The more successful a product, the harder it’s to upgrade.

• The more users say they want a product update, the more they complain when the change arrives.

It wouldn’t be unkind to ascribe both of them to the iOS platform: spectacularly successful and at the crossroads for the mother of all upgrades for both hardware and software, now commandeered for the first time by a single person who’s not named Steve Jobs. The financial impact of these design decisions is easily the 64-billion dollar question at Cupertino.

What has changed?

Having already sold over 120 million iPads in less than two years, Apple’s now making the sales pitch to hundreds of millions of potential post-PC consumers that iPads may be ‘OR’ devices, not just ‘AND’ adjuncts to their desktops and notebooks of yesteryear.

The iPhone in 2007 and the iPad in 2010 created their respective industry segments, then went on to dominate what was mostly virgin territory with a simple proposition: One Device > One Account > One App > One Window.

Several years after their introduction, now with many competitors, Apple is under pressure to examine every link in that chain of platform definition. And the one most contested is the last: One Window. While it’s true that iOS apps can contain two (and sometimes even more) ‘views’ in one screen, like the standard Master-Detail views, two different apps cannot share the same window. A blog writing app on an iPad can, for example, dedicate portions of its single window to video, map, search engine results or tweet displays, but not specifically to Vimeo, Google Maps, Bing or Twitter apps. In the sandboxed territories of iOS, ‘One Device > One Account > One App > One Window’ is still the law of the land.

As iPads move into business, education, healthcare and other vertical markets, however, expectations of what iPads should do beyond audio, video, ebook and simple app consumption have gone up dramatically. After all, users don’t just inertly read in one app at a time but write, code, design, compose, calculate, paint, clip, tweet, and, in general, perform multiple operations in multiple apps to complete a single task in one app.

In iOS, this involves double-clicking the Home button, swiping in the tray to find the other app, waiting for it to (re)load fully, locating the app view necessary to copy, double-clicking the Home button, finding the previous app in the tray and waiting for it to (re)load fully to paste the previously copied material. That’s just one operation between two apps. Composing a patient review for a doctor or creating a presentation for a student can easily involve many such operations among multiple apps.

Indeed, among the major post-iOS mobile platforms like Android, Metro and BlackBerry, iOS is the most cumbersome and slowest at inter-app navigation and task completion. There have been a few mitigating advances: gestural swipes, faster processors and more memory certainly help but the inter-app task sharing problem is becoming increasingly more acute. Unfortunately, solving iOS’s multitasking problem in general involves many other considerations, including introduction of UX complexity and thus considerable user re-education, to say nothing of major architectural OS changes. It may thus take Apple longer than expected to find an optimal solution. What can Apple do in the interim then?

Is ‘Multi’ the opposite of ‘One’?

Systems designers know all too well: when you just don’t have the time, money, staff or technology to solve a given problem, there are ways to cheat. Steve Jobs would be the first to tell you: that’s OK. A well executed cheat can be indistinguishable from a fundamental architectural transition.

From a design perspective, the weakest link in the one-task-many-operations-in-different-apps problem is the iOS clipboard. The single-slot clipboard. The one that forces the user to shuffle laboriously among apps to collect all the disparate items one. at. a. time.

But with a multi-slot clipboard, if you were writing a report, for example, you could go to a web page, copy the URL, a paragraph, maybe a photo and a person’s email address in one trip. Now a single trip back to the initial app and you have four items ready to be pasted into appropriate places with no more inter-app shuffle necessary. Instant 4X productivity gain. Simply put, if you had a four-slot clipboard, you can instantly quadruple your productivity. For a ten-slot clipboard, 10X!

Well, obviously, it’s not that easy. First of all, Apple doesn’t believe in multi-slot clipboards and doesn’t even ship one with Mac OS X. Also, you couldn’t really have an ‘infinite-slot’ clipboard, for iOS would run out of memory quickly. Finally, a multi-slot clipboard would require a visible UI for the user to select the right content, thereby introducing some cognitive complexity.

None of these objections seem insurmountable, though. iOS already has a similarly useful ‘option selectors’ like the recent ‘share sheets’ from which a user can send stuff to Twitter, Facebook, email, etc. Limiting the clipboard to four slots would enable at least 250-pixel square previews of each slot’s contents for easy identification. The Clipboard could pop, move up, slide in from right or perform some other clever animated appearance. Yes, there could be a cognitive penalty for having to be concerned about system-memory management, but a bit of user training for the concept of ‘First In, First Out’ or a little alert to the user indicating memory-intensive copying would go a long way.

It’s not my job to suggest Jony Ive how this might be implemented in UI and UX. But until Apple has a more general solution to multitasking and inter-app navigation, the four-slot clipboard with a visible UI should be announced at WWDC. I believe it would buy Ive another year for a more comprehensive architectural solution, as he’ll likely need it.