Thursday, July 11, 2013

the terrible and horrible realisation that you don't know what somebody is talking about when you think that you probably should

it's alright. you probably don't need to know.

but it's true, if that person is saying it, then omg omg omg you probably really should know it so you can at least acknowledge it and talk about it and update your slides to reference it and then explain how you've always been doing it but actually when you were doing it before people had a name for it it was just something you did as part of what everybody now calls holistic interaction experiential lean mapping or something omg omg omg I don't even believe anything I say any more I'm a terrible imposter and I'm going to be found out why do I bother clearly I should just go back to compulsively rearranging the bookshelf in my bedroom I hate myself and want to die in a professionally self destructive kind of way.

but it's alright. you probably don't need to know.

but it's true, if everybody you follow on twitter is making reference to it, then omg it's even worse and now they're all actually making it more obscure by making oblique references to some historical precedence which is clearly the foundation for the thing this person is talking about but omg omg since this is like THE CORE PRINCIPLE AND I DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT THEN WHAT HOPE IS THERE FOR ME and this person over here is already saying that the thing is already not a thing anymore and I was going to say something funny about the thing sounding a bit like a fruit or something but now I might as well just not say anything because I have no idea what I'm doing in this industry and everybody knows it and dammit it does sound like a fruit why can't I just say that omg hang on the person who said it in the first place has now said what they meant was something a bit different to what everybody is saying and they're all wrong and there's a bit of an argument going on I wish I could say the fruit thing why don't I know what's going on.

but it's alright. you probably don't need to know.

but it's true, if you're sat in the half-darkness of a meetup in the basement of the faculty of brain hurt sciences or the half-brightness of a design agency eyebrow in a soho loft listening to that person you've always wanted to listen to and then they casually throw out reference to the thing and everybody in the room laughs and you don't know why so you laugh along but you're thinking to yourself omg I only just managed to get to grips with ironic self-referential unicorn bon-mots what is this that I'm now supposed to knowingly acknowledge without actually anybody actually ever telling me to my satisfaction WHAT IT ACTUALLY IS AND INCIDENTALLY I'M BEGINNING TO GET AM I THE ONLY PERSON WHO DOESN'T ACTUALLY KNOW RAGE ACTUALLY then, surely, I'm not the only person who doesn't get it.

it's alright. you're not. imposter syndrome hits everyone. it's always been there. except now it's accelerated and amplified by the immediacy of the broadcast and disseminate model of social sharing. the discoverability of knowing what you apparently don't know is optimised to a point that it almost happens in negative time. it's over before it emerges. you're already too late. you missed the fruit joke.

but it's alright. I'm so far behind I'm actually way ahead. at least, that's how I deal with it.

Wednesday, July 3, 2013

Your design resume is awesome but I don't care

I've spoken a lot in the last few days about what user experience is. My best descriptions don't include those words any more. I'm finding that I can only express the qualities I look for when I'm hiring UX professionals in terms of life experiences. Meaning that I tend to prioritise specific academic qualification or checklists of skills much lower than I prioritise the things that make you the person that you are. And I have to acknowledge that that makes it almost impossible for potential candidates to formally structure an approach that I might respond positively to. My assessment of what makes an engaging resume or portfolio does seem to be at odds to the majority of hiring managers in the field or, more specifically, recruiters. I'm grateful to my UXPA mentees for pointing that out, since otherwise I may just consider that everyone is writing terrible resumes which is why they're finding it difficult to penetrate into the first level of human interaction with me - an interview.

I'll be honest. A lot of resumes I see are terrible. But worse than that, a lot of them are just not very compelling. I don't find anything in them that makes me want to invest the effort I really should. There's nothing in there that makes me interested in who that person is. I try, and fail, to respond positively to a checklist of application software, when, frankly, it's meaningless to me. I have an expectation that anyone who is applying for a design role can manage application software. If you can't, I'll teach you how. That's not the thing that makes you a designer. What makes you a designer is your ability to think, articulate, challenge, interrogate, evolve, be bold, be different, be confident, be accountable and have the courage of your conviction. I really need to see something of that in your approach to me, since that's really what differentiates you. It might just be how you word a personal statement or whatever you call it. It might be in the narrative that forms the basis of your portfolio. It might be that you've got an interest in garden furniture. Really, I can't tell you what it looks like, but I have to respond to you at a level more significant than simply a well-structured document. I have to work with you. I have to like you. So give me a sense of what that might be like, rather than letting me know how good you are at using Axure.

In the end, I can only offer a personal opinion. I'm the least professional professional I know. But since I'm hiring designers, it might be useful, or at least interesting. I'm willing to accept it might actually just be more confusing. But if you were considering working with me, at least you now know something about the things that make me the person that I am.

Tuesday, July 2, 2013


whereupon the twentieth century withered to its unceremonious and overinflated end and so began the shift from simply doing to understanding for as the question of needs and behaviours was seen to encompass a new empathetic aesthetic in reality we were simply questioning why the plans were neither best laid or with foundation since we couldn't adequately express those plans in terms of the context by which end users were to be expected to interact engage and consume far less for us to imagine that we might somehow manage a longer term expectation through a better understanding of the psychology of human behaviours specifically related to the interface of interactions between ourselves and the pixels and patterns on the viewing planes of the computer display in this regard we were learning to manage the subtle increments to our references for human computer interactions and how we applied those increments to our clumsy manifestations of engineering design those crude responses to the predominantly functional definition of a problem boundary sufficed for our early renditions of solutions as experiences but fell some way short of a necessary incorporation of a significantly broader set of methods and practices borrowed and repurposed for a new set of inputs for a new set of outputs in that crossover from a popularisation of web design based on an abstract representation of basic human and computer interaction points to a deeper understanding of the cognitive primitives that in turn become the patterns of behaviour that model an interaction was nothing short of revelatory in a few short years at the very end of a century the principals of design shifted from physical to experiential in a way that few might have been in a position to really articulate moreover it was more closely aligned to the visions of the near future we were living expressed fifty years previously by the likes of clarke and asimov in their explorations of a developing sentience and self awareness in the objects and interfaces that we humans create to satisfy the craving to objectify ourselves perhaps at the beginning of the new century designing for a new set of experiences was a reaction to a search for a new set of meanings as a new millennium forced us to collectively appraise our progress against that imagined future and seek new way to express meaning through the design of the world around us based on a closer focus on our own position within it what this was really bound by was the extent to which our ability to reinvent ourselves was limited by our need to attach meaning to our roles by association with and extension of a discrete collection of principles seemingly snatched from the grip of a decaying academia half buried by the weight of its own expectation