Paper vs. Sketchbook Pro – A Study in Design Constraint

Written on April 21, 2012 at 8:12 pm, by Travis Lowdermilk

Introduction

Tablet computing and digital art have become an increasing trend. As devices like the iPad provide multi-touch functionality and near real-time response, virtual artistry has become more realized.

Specifically, two applications are leading in this area:

Paper by 53

(http://www.fiftythree.com/paper)

Paper is a simple and straight-forward drawing application by 53. Paper’s approach is to provide a constrained drawing environment. The constraint is intended. 53 believes that removing unnecessary options and providing “5 essential tools and 9 colors” allows the user to focus on being more creative and less on “settings and other distractions”.

The user interface for Paper by 53

Sketchbook Pro by Autodesk

(http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/pc/index?siteID=123112&id=6848450)

Autodesk is more commonly known for their advanced Computer Aided Drawing (CAD) applications like AutoCAD and 3D Studio Max. Autodesk has lead the industry for years in computer drawing and has, virtually, become an industry standard. With Sketchbook Pro, they have provided a professional-grade artistry tool. With a variety of tools, effects, color palettes, layers and other features, Sketchbook Pro is a sophisticated application for the professional artist.

The user interface for Sketchbook Pro by Autodesk

Theory about Constraint in Design

My theory is that while Sketchbook Pro is a robust application – capable of detailed artistry – the features, settings and options get in the way of creative thinking. I believe that novice users would find Paper’s approach (using constraint in design) more satisfying, even though their options may be limited.

The Study (Objective and Method)

My subject for this study was my Father-in-Law, John. John is a 61 year-old male who has had limited exposure to computing. He’s owned a computer for less than ten years and has only been using the Internet for five. To my knowledge, he has never used a tablet/stylus combination to draw.

I prepared a series of tasks for John to complete in both applications:

Draw a house.
Color the roof red.
Draw a tree.
Color the tree green.

I introduced both applications to John and explained the basic functionality. Additionally, I showed him how to use a Bamboo Stylus for the iPad:

Bamboo Stylus for iPad

I stressed to John that the desire was to observe him using both applications and that the study was not a test on his ability to accurately draw the images. I let him practice feeling the stylus and iPad and gave him minimal instruction in both applications. I asked him to “talk out loud” and explain what he was trying to achieve within each application. I explained that if he was having trouble he could ask questions and I would provide assistance.

First Study: Paper

Upon opening Paper, John began to draw but nothing was happening (He had the eraser selected).

“Do I have to select the deal?” (Indicating the pen)

After selecting the pen, I was astonished how quickly John began to draw. I expected some fumbling as he became familiar with the concept of drawing digitally. However, it appeared that drawing came naturally.

Using the stylus and iPad did not require him to establish a new mental model of how the tools operated in the digital environment.

That’s not to say that drawing on a multi-touch surface was completely without error.

“Uh-oh, how come that did that?” (Indicating lines, toward the bottom of the screen, he did not intend to draw)

Most users, when drawing, apply their palm to the surface to steady their hand. Unfortunately, the palm registers on the iPad as input. Therefore, John was continually drawing lines in areas on the surface that he did not intend. This was true for both applications.

“I want to get rid of that.” (John selects the eraser and quickly removes the lines).

When it came to the task of “color the roof red”, I was surprised that John immediately selected the paint brush, without hesitation. I assumed that he would continue using the pencil and simply change the palette to red. Instead, he intuitively selected the paint brush. When asked later why he chose the brush, he replied: “Because I knew it would cover more area. It would be easier to color [the roof].”

Paper: The finished product

Second Study: Sketchbook Pro

I loaded Sketchbook Pro and placed the iPad in front of John. In Sketchbook Pro, the user is required to press a small circle on the page to reveal the tools and colors. I assumed that this would create some difficulty for John, but was amazed that, without hesitation, he pressed the circle and quickly selected a pencil.

The small circle in Sketchbook Pro that reveals the toolset

However, when he began to draw he immediately encountered challenges.

“Wait. Why is this line so wide? I want a pencil; not this” (John had selected a charcoal pencil; however, it appeared that, to him, the icon represented a standard pencil).

John then pressed the circle, to reveal the tools, then selected the eraser and began trying to erase the line.

“How come it’s only erasing part of it?” (John did not realize that his opacity setting on the eraser was not set to 100%. The outcome was that he was only able to partially erase [or fade] the line.)

I showed John how he could make use of the Brush Properties circle. By dragging up or down, within the circle, you are able to adjust the eraser’s opacity. By dragging left or right, within the circle, you are able to adjust the eraser’s diameter.

Brush Properties circle for Sketchbook Pro

“I would’ve never had known that if you hadn’t shown me!”

John proceeded to continue with the tasks. He spent significantly more time with Sketchbook Pro and seemed to get agitated when the tools would come up at inappropriate times or disappear when he intended to use them. He continually noted that he’d made unintentional lines and appeared to heavily focus on the need to get rid of them. However, he simply gave up and proceeded to the next task.

Although he appeared to struggle more with Sketchbook Pro, he was able to complete all four tasks.

Sketchbook Pro: The finished product

Other Observed Comparisons

I found it fascinating that John appeared to be more “creative” while using Paper. Due to its restrained UI, John spent more time focusing on the details of his drawing in Paper (notice the extra detail lines in the tree and the ground).

Additionally, he was more explorative with Paper. He would erase lines and try different shapes. With Sketchbook Pro, he had more of a “that will do” mentality and appeared more concerned with losing his progress than trying to redo any elements.

Overall, it was extremely clear by his expressions and comments that while using Paper he was communicating creatively and while using Sketchbook he was communicating functionally.

Example comments while using Paper: “I think I’ll choose this color.”, “I’m going to use the pencil for this.”

Example comments while using Sketchbook Pro: “How do I erase this?”, “Is this the right tool? I think this is a brush.”, “How do I make the tools stay open?”

Lessons Learned

It must be stated that this study is, in no way, a commentary about the effectiveness or merits of either application. The intent was not to prove that one app was better than the other. Although John had more difficulty with Sketchbook Pro, it is obvious that Autodesk did not design the application with the novice in mind.

When asked what app John would rather use, I found his response interesting:

“Well, at first, I would use Paper, because it’s easier. But, as I got better, I’d want to use the other one because it looks like I could do a lot more with it. I know, eventually, I would want to mix colors, or I don’t know, use other brushes or something like that.”

I pressed him about which application was more “enjoyable to use”. He continually prefaced the statement that Paper was more enjoyable “only because it was easier for a beginner”. He continually re-iterated that he would still prefer to use Sketchbook Pro if he could “learn more about it”.

I’ve concluded that while John was able to achieve his tasks more quickly and with less frustration using Paper, he aspired to use Sketchbook Pro. I believe that he made an assessment that, because Sketchbook Pro had more options and tools, it was the superior product. Thus, he would want to educate himself on Paper to garner the ability to use the more advanced Sketchbook Pro.

It could be argued that John was far more creative using Paper and, although he did not realize it, he would be more effective using Paper over Sketchbook Pro.

It also could be argued that users don’t always choose the application that is best. John clearly aspired to use Sketchbook Pro. To him, it was more challenging and, quite possibly, gave him the impression that he would somehow be better if only he knew how to use it.

We see other parallels of this kind of decision making with other products. It’s not uncommon to see a user struggle with the complexities of Photoshop when a simple photo editor would complete the task.

If I were to conduct the study again

I would like to explore the notions of “value” between the applications. I would be curious to see what the user’s perceived value of each application was. I would ask questions like:

“What application, do you think, is more valuable?”
“What application, do you think, is more expensive?”
“If you were a professional, what application would you prefer?”

It would be interesting to see if users commonly expressed that Sketchbook Pro was the more valuable application, simply because of its advanced feature-set.

Additionally, I would like to find a subject who identifies themself as an artist. Specifically, I would want someone who has no experience creating digital art on the iPad (or any other computing device). I believe that an artist would provide useful insight into the merits of each application. Also, it would be interesting to see if the artist would value Paper’s design constraint over Sketchbook Pro’s expansive feature-set.

DePaul University, Design, HCI, Usability No Comments

Ah-Ha! – The Moment of Insight and Thoughts on Creativity

Written on April 6, 2012 at 5:09 pm, by Travis Lowdermilk

I have an intense fascination with the process of creativity. The point at which our minds approach an insight that re-shapes how we perceive our world. The proverbial “A HA!” moment.

Creative thinking is a difficult and, at times, insurmountable process. It’s emotional and it can leave us vulnerable. However, as developers it’s an absolutely critical process in creating products that our users will love.

Doing our weekly show, I’ve had a unique opportunity to speak to some of the best designers and developers. Designers, for the most part, believe that anyone can be a designer. Developers, on the other hand, often say things like: “I can’t do design; I’m not an artist”.

This becomes apparent in the emergence of the mobile market. Gone are the days of huge development teams; complete with a design staff. A small team (or even one person) has the ability to create an application that can be distributed around the globe. Global domination is…in fact…..possible.

This week we had Robby Ingebretsen on the show and we talked about the creative process. He’s a very talented individual and I took away some key insights:

Creative thinking requires bravery: It requires the ability to put something “out there” and receive criticism. You won’t reach the nexus of a big breakthrough if you’re unwilling to experiment (and fail) at new ideas.
Great design comes from studying others: I think this is a common misconception (and by common, I mean I–often–make it myself). People tend to think that only “creative types” are good at design. That, somehow, they just “dream up” new ideas. I think great designers fastidiously study others’ work. They spend time looking at other designs and try to articulate why “it works” (or doesn’t work). Additionally, they continually search for language that helps them express these ideas.
Being creative requires investment: You have to be willing to spend time thinking creatively. Immerse yourself in others’ work, and save those ideas in a place that you can recall later. On the show, I suggested Pinterest as a good place to start. You can set aside 20 minutes, each week, to browse through designs and “pin” things you like. Later, you can review your “pins” and try to articulate what impressed you about the design.

Imagine: How Creativity Works by Jonah Lehrer, studies the moment of insight. It’s an awesome read on this topic. He walks through various examples (Bob Dylan, 3M, Pixar) and debunks many misconceptions about how creative insight works.

Chief among them, is the notion that creativity comes only from “creative types”. He argues that it is, simply, brain mechanics. The ability for us to let go of intense focus (left brain) and allow abstract ideas to take shape (right brain).

Here are some activities that help right-brained thinking:

Relaxation: Bottom-line, regardless of what we may think, stress and focus does not create our most imaginative work. It’s important to allow time for productive daydreaming. Do you think it’s a coincidence that you come up with your best ideas while taking a relaxing, warm shower?
Explore: Most of the insights in this book came from one’s willingness to re-look at conventional wisdom. The ability to ignore the “knowns” and the bravery to suggest new ones.
Persistence: All of the stories in this book carry a common theme. Most everyone gave up; deeming the challenge “impossible”. However, a drive–deep inside them–persisted. And it wasn’t until they gave up, that the right brain could take over and give them the insight they were looking for. It was the abandonment of all the things they knew that opened them up to the things they didn’t. So in a weird way, it’s best to give up–but be persistent. I know. That makes no sense. But–in a way–it does.

Lastly, if you’ve found this topic as interesting as I have, I’d encourage you to watch the documentary From the Sky Down. I’m an insane U2 fan, so I may be biased. However, regardless of how you feel about their music, this film is such a great documentation of the creative process.

It walks us through the development of the album “Achtung Baby!” and all the stages U2 went through to achieve a “new sound”. Oddly enough, it wasn’t until the band had reached the point of giving up, did they finally gain the insight they were looking for.

Design, Industry No Comments

HCI 440 – Usability Engineering

Written on March 12, 2012 at 4:19 am, by Travis Lowdermilk

I’ve just completed the Winter 2011-2012 quarter at DePaul. One of the classes I was enrolled in was HCI 440 – Usability Engineering. Essentially, the focus of the course was a cursory overview of the entire user-centered design process. I’m told that future courses will drill into each area more specifically, but I felt that this was a great “101″ course to gain a fundamental understanding.

Even if you are not interested in pursuing a graduate program, I would encourage you to consider this course (or something similar). As developers, I feel strongly that we all should have instruction in the process of user-centered design. Bottom-line, it helps you make better (potentially more successful products).

Throughout the course, I was involved in a group project where we applied the user-centered design process to building a conceptual iPhone/iPad app.

We had to go through all the key stages:

Come up with an idea
Explore the problem space
Complete requirements gathering
Create a couple of conceptual models and decide which model best fit the requirements
Create a prototype
Perform usability tests on the prototype
Refine the prototype based on our findings from the test
Prepare a “pitch” commercial video for our application

The project that we came up with was an app called “Potluckr”. Essentially, it’s an app to help users organize an potluck party. Through the use of ordered lists, updates, invitations and notifications, Potluckr gets everyone on the same page to produce an organized potluck event.

The entire process was a great learning experience and I was fortunate to be a part of a really great team that took the assignment seriously. The discussions and debates we had were “real world” and it felt like we were really trying to bring a product to market.

The key take-aways from the course:

Requirements gathering may seem like “common sense”, but it’s amazing what can develop when you take a moment and listen to users talk about the problem space. It’s so incredibly easy to make the wrong assumptions or miss opportunities by thinking you have the app “already figured out”.
Usability tests are difficult, time consuming, and a slightly emotional process. Hearing criticism is hard. Especially when you’re convinced your approach is the right one. However, I’m (now) a firm believer in them. The ROI on the time spent is worth it. It makes for a better product. Period.
The user-centered design approach makes developing easier. Honestly! It may seem daunting, especially if you are a small development shop (or even a lone developer), however, I can’t stress this enough. Spending time outside of code and, methodically, approaching the problem space and questioning potential users will save you from writing code you won’t use. Or worse yet, doesn’t solve the problem!

Some other details from the class:

Textbook: Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction 3rd Edition – Rogers, Sharp, Preece

Potluckr Prototype I (Used during usability testing)

Potluckr Pitch Video:

DePaul University, Industry, Usability No Comments

Just Draw It.

Written on March 9, 2012 at 9:00 pm, by Travis Lowdermilk

A common theme I come across in my life as a programmer is the reluctance to embrace prototyping. Now, understand I only say that I come across this often because I — myself — am reluctant to prototype.

My studies at DePaul this quarter, in the area of Human Computer Interaction have solidified one thing. Prototyping is not a waste of time.

However, as programmers, I think we can’t escape the feeling that it is.

We try and justify reasons why we don’t spend time considering early design concepts. I hear developers say things like: “I don’t do design” or “I don’t have time to worry about how pretty it is.”

What I’ve learned, is that prototyping is not just about design. It’s really about exploring ideas as early as possible — and — iterating on those ideas.

It’s so tempting to “go for the code” or to approach every problem with curly brackets. I’ve sat in meetings and, while the customer is speaking about their needs, I start to drift into thought about how I’m going to “wire things up”.

So this quarter, I tried something different. I enrolled in HCI 302 – Foundations in Digital Design.

During the course, I was expected to carry around a 110 page sketchbook, pencils, and an eraser. I was instructed to have it filled, cover to cover, by the end of the course. Roughly 10 weeks to completely fill 110 pages of notes, drawings, sketches, etc.

What I found was that, when I sketched ideas out first, it was much easier to return to them.

I understand that this sounds like common sense but I didn’t appreciate how many of my ideas, thoughts, and conceptual models were being lost.

It was really interesting to finish a project and go back through some of my earlier sketches. You see how some ideas took shape and carried through to the end — or how other ideas morphed into better ones.

There are also some great software solutions for low to high fidelity prototyping. Axure RP is an outstanding software product for piecing together early concepts. It also does a great job of allowing you to create functional prototypes, so you can start to “play” with your application before you start writing code.

If you don’t like the idea of “analog paper”, try Autodesk’s Sketchbook Pro on the iPad. It’s an unbelievably slick product and works even better with an adonit Jot Pro (big thanks to VTown Tim for that nugget).

Again, as developers, it can be very hard to use these tools. You might be thinking If I’m going to spend time in something like Axure, I should just be coding!. But the pay off is the little nuances that are discovered because you took time to flush out early concepts.

Some argue that pencil and paper is the best way to start and I would agree. The more barriers you remove to getting your ideas on something tangible, the better. Even if you discover a few things during the process, that’s a few things you would’ve ended up coding — that would’ve been thrown away!

Here is my sketchbook:

I’m not an artist (far, far, from it), but going through this process helped me understand that I didn’t need to be. It helped me realize that it’s worth a little embarrassment if it prevents me heading in the wrong direction early in my project!

DePaul University, Products, Theory No Comments

DePaul University – Human-Computer Interaction

Written on March 5, 2012 at 8:22 pm, by Travis Lowdermilk

When I began this blog, the desire was to document a journey through studying the emerging field of usability, user experience, and user-centered design. The backdrop for this journey will be, in large part, DePaul University. DePaul, located in Chicago Illinois, boasts itself as being the largest U.S. Catholic school and maintains one of the most diverse student bodies.

Specifically, I’m conducting studies at the College of Computing and Digital Media (CDM). There, I will be working (hard) at obtaining a Master of Science degree in Human-Computer Interaction.

The HCI program at DePaul CDM has been in place for, roughly, 15 years and provides not only graduate studies but a Bachelor of Science in HCI as well. My experience, thus far, has been that DePaul is ready to engage any topic of learning. Their programs are much more modern and current than other colleges I’ve seen. In fact, DePaul was listed as one of the top schools for 15 of the most popular majors. (Princeton Review 2010)

In reference to the HCI graduate program, DePaul strives to bring the disciplines of design, computer science, and social sciences to provide a foundational understanding of the user-centered design process.

Additionally, what makes DePaul CDM so fantastic is that it provides the ability to conduct the entire HCI program online. At DePaul, they offer a service called Course Online (COL). It was developed, internally, from the folks on the COL Web Team at DePaul. For a “homegrown” solution, it’s an absolutely outstanding product. The audio/video quality is great, the slide presentations are clear and it really feels like you’re in class.

Also, you have the ability to watch in a variety of ways. You can use the desktop (direct download, Flash, and Silverlight), or you can use the iPad or Android apps. All of these mediums create a vast ecosystem of products to watch your lectures whenever or wherever you want.

I really can’t say enough great things about the COL Web Team and their suite of COL products.

I’m very excited and humbled to be part of the DePaul student body. It’s a fantastic institution and I would recommend it to anyone.

More to come!!

DePaul University No Comments

Homework: Alarm Clock Essay

Written on January 11, 2012 at 11:39 pm, by Travis Lowdermilk

As a part of my HCI 440 Usability Engineering Class at DePaul University, I was asked to exam various usability challenges of my alarm clock radio. It was an interesting process, taking something that I use, everyday, and examining the merrit of its design.

Travis Lowdermilk
Alarm Clock Essay
HCI 440 Usability Engineering

The RCA RC65i iPod/iPhone Alarm Clock was designed to be a fully featured alarm, radio, clock, and sound system. The RC65i gives users the ability to cradle iOS devices, which then can be used as source audio for alarms. This can be of great value to users who desire the ability to charge their iPhone or iPod while sleeping.

Alarm Clock

While the amount of features can be admired, the RC65i is wrought with design choices that make operation difficult.
While the designers may have been trying to produce a minimal looking design (which would be desired amongst Apple users), they failed to remove unnecessary features; thus requiring many buttons to perform basic operations. These buttons, while consistent, struggle with visibility and create scenarios where the user could complete undesired tasks.

For instance, on the top of the device, the designers give an array of options. One feature is the ability to configure two separate alarms. While this may be valuable for a user who requires multiple alarm configurations, it becomes confusing to quickly ascertain which alarm you are using at a given time.

Alarm Clock Top

Additionally, the buttons are similar in size and shape. The labeling is small and difficult to read, making it too easy for a user to make the wrong selection. Curiously, the top panel of buttons includes dedicated buttons for Daylight Savings Time and Time Zone. Given the size of the radio, it seems unlikely that this device would be relocated often, if at all. It seems unnecessary to give dedicated buttons to a feature that would be used so infrequently.

Along the top frame of the device there are more buttons. These buttons are given higher visibility as they are much larger and easier to reach. These buttons include: volume, snooze, nap, and sleep. The snooze button is given appropriate presence (it takes up almost half of the top frame), which affords a bleary-eyed user to quiet the alarm successfully. However, the snooze button is positioned in the middle of the remaining buttons. These additional buttons are too similar in shape, creating a potential for an incorrect action.

Alarm Clock Top Frame

Additionally, two of the buttons, along the top frame, are labeled “nap” and “sleep”. With the combination of “snooze”, the user has three options to quiet the alarm. While “snooze” may have a common understanding with most alarm clock users, “nap” and “sleep” do not. Also, it is not immediately clear how “nap” and “sleep” are different. This requires the user to refer to the instruction manual or perform their own testing to determine the outcome of pressing either of these buttons. All three of these alarm-quieting buttons are positioned next to each other, creating a challenging puzzle for a user who has just been awakened.

Finally, the RC65i is outfitted with a large blue display and glowing blue capacitive touch buttons. Admittedly, this gives the radio a unique and modern look; however, it creates environmental challenges and diminishes the overall experience.

While a large clock display may be desired, the blue LEDs used in the design are far too bright. Users, who prefer a dark room while sleeping, will feel as though a light has been left on, illuminating the entire room. The designers should revisit environmental requirements to ensure an alarm clock that operates well in low light conditions.
To their credit, the designers appeared to be concerned about the brightness as they’ve added a “brightness” control button. However, the three modes given are still entirely too bright for most sleepers.

Alarm Clock Capacitive Buttons

The capacitive touch buttons, while unique, provide too much unnecessary light as well. Additionally, the capacitive buttons are too difficult to operate in low-light conditions as they are the same size and shape. Being capacitive, a user can easily brush across any one of the four buttons and inadvertently activate the radio, auxiliary input, or iPod. This can be especially troubling when it causes a user to turn on the radio in the middle of the night.

RCA should be commended for creating a, relatively, low cost iPhone/iPod alarm clock solution. It has many appealing features, but lacks a straight-forward design.

This creates learnability issues and scenarios where it is all too easy for a user to complete an undesired action.

DePaul University, Design, Products, Usability 1 Comment

The Return of the Client

Written on December 10, 2011 at 5:38 am, by Travis Lowdermilk

Ever since Web 2.0, there has been a shift in computing. There seem to be a realization that traditional “client” applications (those applications that are installed directly onto the PC) were, suddenly, unnecessary. With the emergence of asynchronous frameworks like Ajax and even interactive frameworks like Flash and Silverlight, it became quickly apparent that a browser and some JavaScript was all you needed.

And consumers loved every minute of it. We’ve been doing almost everything in a browser. We schedule appointments, track our diet, make photo books, produce family videos, banking, chatting, and even video conferencing.

The web browser has become a window to interact with the dynamic, ever changing, world of applications.

It became ludicrous to consider building a traditional client installed app. As an ASP.NET developer myself, I would often make bold claims that the “client app is dead!”. I would extol the virtues of web based programming and consider anything else as dated or limited.

And why wouldn’t I? The best way to keep customers happy is to introduce new features and continue to grow your product. In a client-install model, this was far more logistically challenging. In the world of the web, it was as simple as clicking “Publish”.

Then Apple introduced the concept of an “App Store”. It was as if Steve Jobs, himself, found a tape developers were recording and hit rewind.

Overnight, it became all about the “curated experience”, and “discovery”, and creating “niche” apps that were “immersive”. Designers and developers started to loathe the “chrome” of a browser window in favor of full screen apps.

In response, companies stripped their browsers back. Internet Explorer 9 became all about the “Beauty of the Web“. Google released a minimalist browser (ironically titled Chrome) that focused on providing content rather than fancy toolbars and useless UI.

And still, developers remain enamored with the idea of creating full screen, immersive apps that run natively on a computer or mobile device. They’ve bought into the distribution model of these app stores. They’ve agreed to share their profits in exchange for being listed in an exponentially growing virtual market.

This week, Microsoft announced that it too would be adding a Windows Store to the next version of their Windows Operating System.

Windows Store

The idea is simple, if users want to find certified applications for their Windows PC, they can navigate to the Windows Store.

Direct links could also be provided through blogs or search results. These links could take the user directly to the page, within the store, to purchase/install the application. No need for download managers or zip files.

Research firm Gartner predicts that there will be 400 million x86 PCs shipped in 2012 alone. And because all current Windows 7 computers can run Windows 8, you have an established install base of 500 million PCs that could, potentially, use the new Marketplace for their next application purchases.

So, in a sense, it’s the return of the client application. We’ve shifted from a web-based, open up the browser and get your application approach, to a purchase, download, and install approach.

With all that said, there are ways to marry both. Microsoft has been clear that “Metro-style” apps could be written in HTML 5 and JavaScript. Allowing web developers to engage consumers with native apps and benefit from distributing those apps, not on the web, but through a curated store.

For a web developer, worrying about SEO is completely thrown out the window. There’s no need to have a flashy marketing website or cumbersome download and install process.

All of this frees up developers to focus on the product and allow companies, like Microsoft, to handle the distribution and discovery.

I’m very excited about these opportunities. With the latest announcements, regarding the Windows Store, it ushers in a whole new economy that was not available to me as a .NET developer.

Also, creating immersive, chrome-free, apps affords me the ability to focus on the experience of the user. Full screen applications provide autonomy from the rest of the operating system and allow developers and designers to create experiences that fully engage their users.

Industry, Trends No Comments

The Perception Game – The Effects of Advertising

Written on December 3, 2011 at 5:33 pm, by Travis Lowdermilk

“Think Different.”

“Just Do It.”

“I Want My MTV!”

All are iconic phrases that have found there way into our pop-culture psyche. In some cases, we don’t even know how they got there, where they originated, or the intent of their original meanings.

In a word, this is powerful stuff. And it’s everywhere:

The average city dweller receives 51,000 ad messages per day.
The average cost for a 30-second spot in the Super Bowl will be 3 million dollars.
Young people, on average, view more than 40,000 ads a day on television alone.

The fantastic documentary Art & Copy explores the world of advertising and the genesis of some of the greatest ad campaigns of our time.

It’s a facinating film and it got me thinking:

“How does advertising affect usability? Is perception greater than reality?”

“To me, great advertising can make food taste better,
can make your car run smoother.
It can change your perception of something.” — George Lois

I’ve seen this time and again. Especially in the tech industry. There are great products, that have been well researched, carefully crafted, and still flop under the weight of user perception.
A couple of products immediately come to mind.

I co-host a weekly developer podcast about all things Windows Phone. I think the product is fantastic. I think it’s a great example of taking a product and putting usability first. The software has won awards for its design and, for the most part, has been critically acclaimed. But Windows Phone is not flying off the shelves. People aren’t waiting in long lines or getting into fist fights over the last box in stores. Why is that?

I think, in large part, it’s because Apple has done an amazing job of convincing people that Microsoft products are “uncool” or “dated”.

The “Mac vs. PC”, “Think Different”, and various iPhone/iPad ads have found there way into our pop culture. They’ve, somehow, convinced us that “certain people” use these products.

If you’re an artist, if you’re creative, if you’re original and unique, you use Apple products. If you’re a stodgy old business man who gets high on spreadsheets, you use that other company’s products. You tell me what version sounds most appealing, when you consider how you want others to perceive you?

These campaigns made the choice an either/or instead of, the more realistic, both/and. They force us to decide what kind of person we are instead of conceding that both company’s products are great for a variety of different scenarios. The online commentsphere is bombarded with people rehashing this argument ad nauseam.

Palm’s WebOS is another example. A thoughtful, well designed, product fails in the wake of user perception. Palm wasn’t able to shed the perception that they were only capable of those dated stylus-oriented devices. They couldn’t convince the masses that they had produced something truly unique and useful.

Now, I know. Many would argue that these platforms have/had other problems as well. And I would agree. However, it can’t be denied that user perception is critical in getting to the next step of user adoption.

How can you convince a user to try your product if they are already convinced it’s not for them?

I would encourage you to watch Art & Copy. It’s a powerful reminder that great usability is just one of the main facets of a successful product.

Industry 2 Comments

Education: Small Applications Could Make a Big Difference

Written on November 27, 2011 at 6:31 pm, by Travis Lowdermilk

My wife is a Resource Specialist for a Public Elementary School District. The other day, I noticed her completing some paperwork in bed. As many educators know, this is an almost daily routine.

Me: “What is that? You’re always filling those out?”
Wife: “It’s a service log. I’m required to fill this out for each of my students, every week.”
Me: “What for?”
Wife: “Legally, I have to document what services I provide for my kids. Every encounter must be documented.”

At this point, I’m drawn in. I start to look at her logs. For the most part, it’s just a time sheet collecting:

Student
Method
Date
Duration
Focus
Discipline

Essentially, the task requires a minimal amount of data entry. And, typically, the data has consistent values. Applying a systems approach, I got my wife to jot down all the various options for each field. From there, it was a matter of creating some databound lists to select from.

I went the extra mile and added the values to various tables in a database. With a web managment application, she can manage these values and run her reports.
For instance, she could modify her list of students from the web management portal.
This will allow her to deactivate students from her list if they are no longer on her case load.

I’ve tested the application and, in a matter of seconds, she can select a student, date, other values and select “Submit”. Submitting the log entry places the record into a database in the cloud. At the end of the month, it’s a matter of clicks to produce the reports she needs.

The data collection happens on a Windows Phone.

The mobile device is perfect for this sort of entry. The personal nature of the device, as well as, the touch interface is ideal for quick data entry.

The educational system is full of opportunities such as this. Educating young people is an effort in data collection. Constantly establishing baselines and studying the effect of your instruction.

Mobile devices and focused Line of Business applications could have a dramatic effect in streamlining the ability for teachers and specialists to capture this data in the least intrusive way. Less distraction is key and the form factor of a touch-enabled phone allows the instructor to collect data discreetly.

Student Service Log for Windows Phone

Programming, Projects No Comments

“FedEx” Project — Kinect and DICOM Radiology Images

Written on November 18, 2011 at 4:39 am, by Travis Lowdermilk

For people who don’t want to read:

This week I started a new program we have at work called “FedEx” days. Essentially, I get one day a month to work on any project I want.

There’s been a couple of things I’ve wanted to do for some time:

Figure out a way, using .NET, to open DICOM images (Radiology images from our PACS system)
Manipulate those images using a Microsoft Kinect device.

The concept has always intrigued me. One scenario I could imagine, would be to give surgeons the ability to navigate an MRI without touching a contaminated mouse or keyboard. Using gestures and/or voice, it could be possible to interact with software without having to re-scrub.

As always, this work was built on the back of far smarter people than me:

And here’s my source code:
DICOM_Images_Concept.zip

NUI, Programming, Projects No Comments