<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!--Generated by Squarespace Site Server v5.11.81 (http://www.squarespace.com/) on Mon, 28 May 2012 20:51:11 GMT--><feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"><title>Blog</title><subtitle>Blog</subtitle><id>http://karelvredenburg.com/blog/</id><link rel="alternate" type="application/xhtml+xml" href="http://karelvredenburg.com/blog/"/><link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://karelvredenburg.com/blog/atom.xml"/><updated>2012-04-21T22:32:15Z</updated><generator uri="http://www.squarespace.com/" version="Squarespace Site Server v5.11.81 (http://www.squarespace.com/)">Squarespace</generator><entry><title>Increasing Trend in Digital Interactions</title><category term="communication"/><category term="digital"/><category term="survey"/><id>http://karelvredenburg.com/blog/2012/4/21/increasing-trend-in-digital-interactions.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://karelvredenburg.com/blog/2012/4/21/increasing-trend-in-digital-interactions.html"/><author><name>Karel Vredenburg</name></author><published>2012-04-21T21:26:24Z</published><updated>2012-04-21T21:26:24Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>We all have a sense that our world is getting more pervasively digital. However, I wanted to get a sense of the&nbsp;degree to which that change is happening with regard to our day-to-day communication. As I often do, I turned to my friends and followers on the social networks to get a reading. I did a survey three years ago asking questions on a variety of topics including this one. So, I thought it would be good to ask the key question again and see what change, if any, there has been in the use of electronic communication. I asked the following<span class="full-image-float-right ssNonEditable"><span><img style="width: 240px;" src="http://karelvredenburg.com/storage/Electronic%20Communication%202.png?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1335045735635" alt="" /></span></span>&nbsp;question on Twitter and Facebook:&nbsp;What percent of your interactions with others during a typical day would you say are via electronic means versus face-to-face? The results were pretty dramatic. In 2009, people responded that 65.7 percent of their interactions were via electronic means and the corresponding number in 2012 was shown to be 77.0 percent. A 11.3 percent increase in three years is quite amazing. Although this isn't a particularly scientific survey, it reinforces a pretty substantial trend toward more and more of our communication and interaction being experienced digitally. I'll follow up further to investigate additional factors underlying this trend, such as work versus personal interactions, the degree to which the communication leverages mobile devices, etc., and will report those results here as well. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;</p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>Design of the Web's Perceived Value</title><id>http://karelvredenburg.com/blog/2012/4/14/design-of-the-webs-perceived-value.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://karelvredenburg.com/blog/2012/4/14/design-of-the-webs-perceived-value.html"/><author><name>Karel Vredenburg</name></author><published>2012-04-14T17:59:23Z</published><updated>2012-04-14T17:59:23Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>The earliest version of the commercial internet had a business model which required users to pay for its use<span class="full-image-float-right ssNonEditable"><span><img src="http://karelvredenburg.com/storage/freeplusads2.png?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1334438807673" alt="" /></span></span>&nbsp;and&nbsp;its services. Companies like CompuServe, Prodigy, and America Online sold customers these products. &nbsp;An integral part of the design of those products was the fact that you had to pay for them and that, in turn, led to their perceived value to users.&nbsp;Google and Facebook as well as a host of other contemporary companies have designed their products to be free services which has resulted in a perception by their users of the services having a very low monetary value to&nbsp;them. &nbsp;Many often balk at the use of the term "products" when referring to what these companies provide. Of course, these companies are supported through advertising revenue or venture capitalist funding with the promise of future advertising revenue based solely on the number of eye balls staring at those services and the resulting potential ad impressions. In its most recent earnings statement, Google reported that $10.2 of its total $10.65 billion in revenue for the quarter came from advertising. It is also expected that Facebook has even greater ad revenue potential given its greater reach. &nbsp;Of course, the value in this advertising is in its ability to target advertising for particular products with laser precision at potential buyers of that product based on the advertiser's detailed knowledge of the receiver of that advertising. The way the advertiser is able to get that detailed knowledge is by Google and Facebook making more and more of that information about their users available. &nbsp;</p>
<p>Users are upset about the constant changes to the services that they use everyday with every change targetted at making more of their information available to advertisers. &nbsp;However, they're not upset enough to not want to give up the free nature of the service. &nbsp;In a recent discussion on my Facebook account showed that fully 75 percent of my friends wouldn't pay $5 per month for an ad free version of Facebook. &nbsp;Given the initial design of these services as being free, it isn't possible now to introduce even a small fee for their use. &nbsp;What I find strange and unfortunate about this is that I can think of no other industry that relies exclusively on advertising revenue because its customers aren't willing to pay even a small amount of their own money for the products of that industry. &nbsp;I worry how sustainable such a nondiversified business model is for the industry as a whole.</p>
<p>There are portions of the industry that are trying to design offerings that include payment. Apps are a good example. However, as I've written about elsewhere in this blog previously, the monetary value designed into those products is also incredibly low. Most apps are free and an app that costs $9.99 or even $4.99 is perceived as expensive. &nbsp;</p>
<p>It is unfortunate, in my view, that web services and "products" were designed by contemporary companies as free and that the only real business model with any presence and success is one that is almost exclusively based on advertising revenue. &nbsp;While I lament the app-ification of the web, its introduction of some level of payment may be the only way to diversify the business model of what is an incredibly important industry. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>Paradigmatic Change in UIs</title><category term="Apple"/><category term="design"/><category term="iPad"/><category term="iPhone"/><category term="ui"/><id>http://karelvredenburg.com/blog/2012/2/26/paradigmatic-change-in-uis.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://karelvredenburg.com/blog/2012/2/26/paradigmatic-change-in-uis.html"/><author><name>Karel Vredenburg</name></author><published>2012-02-26T14:41:28Z</published><updated>2012-02-26T14:41:28Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>In the first wave of computing there was virtually no user interface, comprising little more than instructions<span class="full-image-float-right ssNonEditable"><span><img style="width: 225px;" src="http://karelvredenburg.com/storage/IBM%20PC.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1330813947030" alt="" /></span></span> written on punch cards which were loaded into a hopper then read by the computer with the results given to the user via a printout. The second wave introduced what we now know to be a user interface, a display with characters and graphics along with a keyboard and mouse. The display evolved from simple monochromatic characters to full color graphics with ever increasing resolution over time and the keyboard and mouse technologies evolved to be smaller and integrated with trackpoints and trackpads. However, the basic elements of a small TV like display, with a keyboard and mouse beneath it, have remained constant for a remarkably long time. What appeared on that display and how a user interacts with it has remained surprisingly constant as well, especially from the time that the concept of programs running in separate windows was introduced.</p>
<p>While there were minor predecessors, the major shift into an entirely new form factor came with the introduction of the iPhone. We're now so used to smartphone UIs that many people forget that we hadn't ever experienced one until Apple introduced its game-changing device.  The smartphone form factor existed before the iPhone, but Apple totally redefined it. Once users were used to the iPhone user interface, the adoption of the larger form factor iPad was incredibly easy because it was virtually identical.  Like the smartphone, the tablet form factor also existed prior to the iPad but again Apple redefined it dramatically. Key to that redefinition was the perfected use of multi-touch. Interacting via multi-touch is so pervasive now that it isn't uncommon to see people walking up to screens in places like hotels, airports, and stores expecting to be able to interact with them with touch only to be really surprised and disappointed when they turn out not to support touch. That's when you know that we've experienced a paradigm shift as a society. Touch has been in university labs for decades but it took Apple's dedication to design excellence of the entire user experience to perfect the technology to create this paradigm shift.   <span class="full-image-float-right ssNonEditable"><span><img style="width: 200px;" src="http://karelvredenburg.com/storage/iPad2.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1330813090918" alt="" /></span></span></p>
<p>Another paradigm shift in interaction modality has just started. This one involves the use of speech. Again, speech technology has been around for decades and has been used commercially successfully as well but mostly in niche markets like voice response systems and dictation systems. Apple's Siri is still in beta, a product designation Apple very rarely uses, but promises to do for speech technology what the iPhone did for touch technology - make it a pervasive and paradigmatic change in society.</p>
<p>There are two major insights to glean from these fairly recent advances.  The first concerns how these changes took place. In each case, the basic research and foundational technologies as well as even some commercial applications existed for decades prior to the paradigm shift. It was Apple's approach to design that made the difference.  The design of everything, from the industrial design of the physical elements of the device (glass, case, bezel, etc.), the visual and interaction design of the operating system and key apps, the engineering design of the internals (processors, memory, battery, GPS, etc.), the manufacturing design of the production line, the design of the website and app store, the design of the content review process, the design of the payment and app download system, the design of the stores, the design of product support, all the way to the design of the product secrecy and product announce/launch systems. Many people like to jump to simple conclusions that these paradigm changes were brought about by this or that individual element but I believe that it was Apple's focus on the total customer experience and all the elements that impact it that was critical. Designers planning a product that they hope will transform an industry need to focus on all of these aspects of design.</p>
<p>The second major insight to glean from these paradigm shifts is the need to rethink how all future products in any market should fit into these major paradigmatic changes in form factor, device, and interaction modality. Designers now need to understand deeply how users are using these technologies in order to design products optimally leveraging them. This is a challenge for many because, as pointed out above, form factor, device, and interaction modality hadn't changed virtually at all for decades.  However, these recent changes are so profound that it really does require designers in any market to sit up and take note and consider how users in their markets may be changing.</p>
<p>Having explored paradigm changes we've already witnessed, let's give some thought to where these may go in the future and what other paradigms we may witness in the future. While the computer, smartphone, and tablet form factors and the touch and speech interaction modalities have mostly developed independently, the emerging trend is for them to become more consistent and a future paradigmatic change may involve them integrating deeply. We're seeing the beginnings of changes being made largely to computer operating systems like Apple's OSX to make them more similar to device operating systems like iOS. Apple is making the change gradually with each update to the OS, which is a wise approach that minimizes the magnitude of the change but still moves drives consistency.&nbsp;We're also seeing the very beginnings of a move to <em>integrate</em> form factors, devices, and interaction modalities. Responsive design is part of this trend, as is the enablement of touch and speech pervasively across devices. We're also seeing some degree of cloud based seamless access integrating content and data across devices. We're also seeing that integration spread to even larger form factors like TVs and digitally enabled physical window panes. Some call this a post-PC era, my sense is that we're witnessing a plethora of form factors which in PCs, ensuring that each of these can suit the wide characteristics and contexts of use into the future. &nbsp;</p>
<p>We're living in exciting times that require designers to be fully aware of, intimately knowledgeable about, and be able to leverage the benefits of these incredible paradigm shifts in technology and people's use of them.</p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>Top 10 Life Habits Podcast Episodes</title><category term="Life Habits"/><category term="podcast"/><category term="self-help"/><category term="self-improvement"/><id>http://karelvredenburg.com/blog/2012/1/6/top-10-life-habits-podcast-episodes.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://karelvredenburg.com/blog/2012/1/6/top-10-life-habits-podcast-episodes.html"/><author><name>Karel Vredenburg</name></author><published>2012-01-07T02:51:27Z</published><updated>2012-01-07T02:51:27Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>I've been reflecting on all the top ten this and top ten that I've seen on blogs and the social networks toward the end of the year. That got me thinking about what the top ten Life Habits podcast episodes would be. &nbsp;I had a look and aggregated the results from several of the top countries and found some pretty interesting results. &nbsp;They reflect the top ten episodes being listened to right now. The list may also be interesting to you if you haven't listened to the full 67 episodes produced to date and would like to listen to ones that other listeners are particularly interested in. This list may also be of interest to people who just got a device for Christmas and want to get into podcast listening too.</p>
<p>So, here's the list (the numbers in parentheses indicate the episode number):</p>
<p class="p1">&nbsp;</p>
<ol>
<li>Types of Help (LH67)</li>
<li>Assertiveness (LH49)</li>
<li>Managing Stress (LH24)</li>
<li>Visualizing Progress (LH64)</li>
<li>5 Lazy Ways to Get in Shape (LH66)</li>
<li>Life Lessons (LH65)</li>
<li>Stop Procrastinating (LH46)</li>
<li>Time Management (LH2)</li>
<li>Staying Positive (LH3)</li>
<li>The Power of the Mind (LH4)</li>
</ol>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p class="p1">Many podcasts that deal with news or technology developments are time sensitive and listeners typically only listen to the most recent episode and past episodes have very little value because they're essentially old news. In contrast, my Life Habits episodes are essentially timeless and people regularly listen to the full list of epsides. Many listeners subscribe and listen to every episode as it comes out but others selectly listen to podcast topics that specifically interest them.</p>
<p class="p1">The most listened to episode right now is the most recent one that I did with UK Psychologist Mandy Kloppers. <span class="full-image-float-right ssNonEditable"><span><img style="width: 200px;" src="http://karelvredenburg.com/storage/Mandy2.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1325913665718" alt="" /></span></span>In addition to being the most recent, it is a topic that I would think would be of particular interest to many of the listeners and Mandy also does a really good job of outlining the types of situations and challenges that would be appropriate for which to seek some professional help, the types of help that are available, and also what to expect and how to get the most out of the various types of professional help. Many people also have difficulty being appropriately assertive so that comes in as the second more popular episode. The session provides information on how to avoid being to unassertive but also very importantly to avoid being too aggressive too. We live in a rather stressful world so managing stress comes in at position three. Visualization of your goals and visualizing progress toward them is important and the episode on that topic came in at position four. The session with my regular guest Marie-Jos&eacute;e Shar on five lazy ways to get into shape is especially of interest at the moment when many people have resolved to get into better shape so this episode came in at position five. Steve Jobs's life lessons came in at the sixth position. The common challenges of procrastination, time management, and staying positive took positions seven, eight, and nine. The tenth slot was taken by my session on the power of the mind during which I describe the various biases we have and often don't know we have. &nbsp;If you'd like to check out these episodes, you can do so by going to the <a href="http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/life-habits/id280971858">podcast page on iTunes</a> or the <a href="http://lifehabits.net/">show notes site</a>. &nbsp;</p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>Apple's Post-PC Era</title><category term="Apple"/><category term="design"/><category term="iPad"/><category term="iPhone"/><category term="iPod Touch"/><category term="mobile"/><id>http://karelvredenburg.com/blog/2012/1/1/apples-post-pc-era.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://karelvredenburg.com/blog/2012/1/1/apples-post-pc-era.html"/><author><name>Karel Vredenburg</name></author><published>2012-01-01T20:19:41Z</published><updated>2012-01-01T20:19:41Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>I was just setting up a new iPad for a family member who wanted to use the new device she received as a gift as a stand alone device without needing to connect to a PC. Regular readers of this blog will know that I'm usually pretty positive about Apple's designs and, of course, I'm certainly not alone in that view. Apple is incredibly good at hardware design and the integration of software with its hardware. However, the company to date has had some difficulty with the design of its cloud capabilities.</p>
<p>Apple has recently used the term "post-PC era" as a basis for its mobile and cloud strategies and communication. Recent updates to iTunes and iOS have provided some independence of mobile devices from computers, but only partially. You can now push updates from a PC-based iTunes to an iPod Touch, iPhone, or iPad without using a cable but you still have to use a computer in the mix.</p>
<p>There are other use cases that have absolutely no support on iOS devices. <span class="full-image-float-right ssNonEditable"><span><img style="width: 300px;" src="http://karelvredenburg.com/storage/Missing%20Button.png?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1325463855412" alt="" /></span></span>The most annoying and concerning one for me is the inability to subscribe to podcasts on Apple mobile devices. You can download individual episodes but there is no way to actually subscribe within mobile iTunes. With the increasing popularity and use of mobile devices (see last blog post), the inability of podcast listeners to subscribe via mobile devices is not only inconvenient for users, it is also a major problem for those creating podcasts, like me. It is really strange that Apple hasn't provided the capability to subscribe. All it would require is to include the same "subscribe" button to the right of the podcast name and artwork on mobile iTunes as is included on the computer-based version of iTunes (see visual on the right). It was pointed out to me by a friend on Facebook that there are separate apps that provide this capability with one called Downcast that is particularly good and one that he recommends. That's a temporary fix but I still think that this missing function needs to be included in the base mobile version of iTunes. I know that it is a herculean task to develop mobile device operating systems that never need to be connected to a PC and to design that really well. However, leaving off the subscribe button seems to be a rather strange oversight on Apple's part.&nbsp;</p>
<p>To the listeners of my podcast who may be reading this, I'd suggest that you use the iTunes on your PC to subscribe to the podcast or download an app like Downcast to essentially replace the podcast part of mobile iTunes on your iOS device. I do hope that Apple addresses this problem soon in an update to iOS so that we won't see bifurcation of the podast audience on Apple devices and also no longer have a single reliable place to determine podcast popularity and feedback.</p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>Mobile Device Use, Activities, &amp; Apps</title><id>http://karelvredenburg.com/blog/2011/12/15/mobile-device-use-activities-apps.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://karelvredenburg.com/blog/2011/12/15/mobile-device-use-activities-apps.html"/><author><name>Karel Vredenburg</name></author><published>2011-12-16T03:07:51Z</published><updated>2011-12-16T03:07:51Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>We all know that the use of mobile devices is increasing but what isn't as clear is how much and what sorts of<span class="full-image-float-right ssNonEditable"><span><img style="width: 200px;" src="http://karelvredenburg.com/storage/Mobile Use.png?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1325177931107" alt="" /></span></span>&nbsp;things people are doing on mobile devices. As I often do, I decided to turn to my social network and I asked my followers "what percent of your daily use of technology would you say is on mobile devices versus non-mobile?" The results were rather interesting. The mean for mobile use was 41.4 percent. That would suggest that we're approaching using mobile devices for nearly half of all our use of technology. I did notice that the range of percentages was also rather high so I checked the median which was 35 percent. That finding reinforced my suspicion that a subset of people use mobile almost exclusively.</p>
<p>Given the significant proportion of our technology use that is mobile, I<span class="full-image-float-right ssNonEditable"><span><img style="width: 200px;" src="http://karelvredenburg.com/storage/Mobile%20Activities.png?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1325182253779" alt="" /></span></span>&nbsp;wanted to next find out what people are doing with their devices, particularly work-related use. I then asked "what are the top three work-related things that you do on your smartphone and/or tablet?" The results are shown in the Wordle on the right with the font size indicating greater prevalence of the activity. The most frequent work-related activities carried out on mobile devices include doing email, accessing social-media services, working with the calendar, and using a web browser. The prevalence of social-media as a work-related activity may appear to some as surprising. It must be realized however that I surveyed people via social-media services so the sample may be biased in that regard but nonetheless it is also likely the case that these services are increasingly being used for work-related purposes.&nbsp; &nbsp;</p>
<p>Lastly, I<span class="full-image-float-right ssNonEditable"><span><img style="width: 200px;" src="http://karelvredenburg.com/storage/Mobile%20Apps.png?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1325182305284" alt="" /></span></span>&nbsp;wanted to get a sense of what apps people use on their mobile devices and would recommend to others. In this case, I didn't restrict the question to work-related use but instead left it open to all apps. I asked "what are your favorite apps on your mobile devices that you would recommend to others?" The results are again shown using a Wordle on the right. The first observation that is immediately obvious from looking at the Wordle is the sheer diversity of apps with only a few standing out as used and recommended by many people. This perhaps shouldn't be surprising given the vast number of apps in the various app stores. It is interesting too that the most popular apps included Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Pulse, Flipboard, and Google Maps. Respondents likely use the built-in apps for email, calendar, etc. so didn't report those. The vast majority of the apps they did mention are essentially apps for accessing social-media services and information aggregating services.</p>
<p>I didn't differentiate here between smartphone and tablet mobile devices. It may well be the case that the majority of these results are based on smartphone use predominantly and that additional types of use and types of apps would be found if we looked specifically at tablets. I plan to examine the use of tablets in a future blog post.&nbsp;</p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>Back from the Life Habits Hiatus</title><category term="Life Habits"/><category term="Steve Jobs"/><category term="health"/><category term="podcast"/><id>http://karelvredenburg.com/blog/2011/11/24/back-from-the-life-habits-hiatus.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://karelvredenburg.com/blog/2011/11/24/back-from-the-life-habits-hiatus.html"/><author><name>Karel Vredenburg</name></author><published>2011-11-24T15:36:12Z</published><updated>2011-11-24T15:36:12Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>Life sometimes gets busy. Mine got a lot busier than my normal busy over the past while which also resulted in an unplanned hiatus from my Life Habits podcast series. The podcast is my hobby and a particularly enjoyable passion of mine. However, when things get busy, our hobbies get squeezed and this one of mine did.</p>
<p>A staycation during the US Thanksgiving break allowed me to get caught up. I recorded an episode titled&nbsp;<a href="http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/lh65-life-lessons/id280971858?i=106881358">Life Lessons</a> which was a companion to the previous blog post on this site about Steve Jobs. The blog post focused specifically on Steve's contributions to design while the podcast episode dealt more broadly with the advice and lessons we can glean from Steve's life.</p>
<p>I also just completed an interview episode titled "<a href="http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/lh66-5-lazy-ways-to-get-in-shape/id280971858?i=107306951">5 Lazy Ways to Get in Shape</a>" with Marie-Jos&eacute;e Shaar. <span class="full-image-float-right ssNonEditable"><span><img style="width: 200px;" src="http://karelvredenburg.com/storage/MJS2.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1322150960723" alt="" /></span></span>She and&nbsp;Kathryn Britton recently published a great new book "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0615529682/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=positivecom0b-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=217145&amp;creative=399373&amp;creativeASIN=0615529682">Smarts and Stamina: The Busy Person's Guide to Optimal Health and Performance</a>". My intereview with Marie-Jos&eacute;e covers a subset of the material in the book and includes advice to sleep all you need, to eat by design, to "do a mini", to not make it a big production, and to exercise on company time. I love how practical the advice is that she shares, the way she explains foundational concepts, the examples she provides, how she practices what she preaches, and how she clearly is living proof of the efficacy of the approach. Marie-Jos&eacute;e also knows of what she speaks in that she has a degree in Organizational Behavior from McGill University, a Master of Applied Psychology from University of Pennsylvania, and she's also certified as a Personal Trainer and is a Certified Nutrition and Wellness Consultant.&nbsp;</p>
<p>I encourage you to check out these new episodes and let me know what you think.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>Steve Jobs: Contributions to Design</title><category term="Apple"/><category term="Steve Jobs"/><category term="design"/><id>http://karelvredenburg.com/blog/2011/10/23/steve-jobs-contributions-to-design.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://karelvredenburg.com/blog/2011/10/23/steve-jobs-contributions-to-design.html"/><author><name>Karel Vredenburg</name></author><published>2011-10-23T21:33:13Z</published><updated>2011-10-23T21:33:13Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>Much has been said and written about Steve Jobs, particularly after his death. <span class="full-image-float-right ssNonEditable"><span><img style="width: 250px;" src="http://karelvredenburg.com/storage/Steve Jobs Pic.jpeg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1319984750531" alt="" /></span></span>I haven't said much until now because it affected me rather deeply and I also wanted to reflect more comprehensively about his contributions. I have had a professional and personal interest in Steve Jobs and Apple for years. As a result, I was pretty well aware of most things that had been written on the subject which wasn't an awful lot due to Steve and in turn Apple's famous position on privacy and secrecy. However, all that changed with the publication of Walter Isaacson's authorized biography titled simply "Steve Jobs". Having read Issacson's book as soon as it came out filled in the many gaps in our understanding of the man and the company. The book chronicled the brilliant and the bizarre aspects of Steve Jobs. It also helped bring into focus and further hone my perceptions of his contributions more generally as well as his contributions to design in particular. &nbsp;</p>
<p>First of all, Steve wasn't a designer. He was a visionary, a dreamer, a big picture thinker while at the same time being arrogant, passionate, and a fanatic about attention to detail. That's quite a combination, and one that is very rare. He would come up with brilliant new ideas, new combinations of old ideas, and old ideas made new again by doing them right. He had an eye for design and an eye for design talent. He inspired, promoted, enabled, challenged, and elevated designers and the role for design within an engineering company. After looking for design talent externally when he returned to Apple, Jobs discovered that he had an amazing designer inside the company, Jonathan Yve, typically referred to as Jony Yve. Steve promoted Jony to the position of Senior Vice President of Industrial Design and had him report directly to him. It is Jony and his team of industrial and user interface designers who are actually behind the design brilliance of Apple.&nbsp;</p>
<p>There are many very talented designers at many companies. Those companies have produced products that those designers knew weren't the best that they could possibly be. Those designers had to compromise their designs given a variety of common constraints such as time, money, and engineering. What those designers lacked was a design champion like Steve Jobs. A design champion who would generate ideas for the designers to explore, challenge the designers to do their absolute best design work, challenge the engineers to implement designs that seemed technically impossible, drive for perfection in the design and the implementation in the product at all cost literally, and would only deliver a product when it was "insanely great". His evangelism for design permeated outside the company too into his famous product launch performances during which he expounded on the design nuances of the product.</p>
<p>Steve Jobs raised the bar for design at Apple and showed that an engineering company can meet that high bar. He showed that great designers can be insanely great and produce industry transforming products when inspired, championed, challenged, supported, and rewarded. Steve also, in turn, provided a lesson for all other companies who want to achieve what Apple has achieved. I think Steve's legacy will not solely be what he did at Apple but what insight he provided to all others who in turn could learn from his example and could well improve the design of everything we see and touch. Thanks Steve.&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>Designing for Mobile Sites</title><category term="android"/><category term="blackberry"/><category term="design"/><category term="iPhone"/><category term="mobile"/><id>http://karelvredenburg.com/blog/2011/9/18/designing-for-mobile-sites.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://karelvredenburg.com/blog/2011/9/18/designing-for-mobile-sites.html"/><author><name>Karel Vredenburg</name></author><published>2011-09-19T01:01:54Z</published><updated>2011-09-19T01:01:54Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>Mobile devices are proliferating at an incredible rate. Designers of websites have to decide what experience they'd like to create for users of their sites and factor in what users prefer. SmartPhones are the real challenge given their screen size. Since the iPhone came out with its amazing screen and the ability to resize portions of the screen, I've come to prefer full websites rather than sites optimzed for the smaller screen. I prefer a three column website design with navigation in the left column, the main content in the center column, and additional information in the right column. I then double-tap the center column to enlarge the core content to make it easier to read. &nbsp;</p>
<p>That's my own personal preference but I wanted to learn what other people prefer. <span class="full-image-float-right ssNonEditable"><span><img style="width: 250px;" src="http://karelvredenburg.com/storage/SmartPhone Twitter Results.png?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1316986797371" alt="" /></span></span>As usual, I consulted the social networks. I asked, "Do you prefer mobile-enabled or full versions of websites on our SmartPhone?" A total of 55 people replied and the results are shown in the visual on the right. A slight majority of respondents (61%) preferred sites to be optimized for the mobile device but a non-trivial number (27%) preferred the full site and a reasonable number wanted both (8%) and a very small number (4%) said that it depends. Given these results and the fact that many respondents felt quite strongly about their responses, it isn't immediately obvious what designers should do in order to provide users what they prefer. Although the majority preferred mobile enabled sites, many people expressed the concern that many sites that are optimized for mobile leave out information that is available on the full version of the site. The best advice therefore would be to provide a mobile version of the site that includes the same information as the full version, to also provide direct access to the full version for those who prefer that, and to save users' preferences for the next time they access the site.</p>
<p>It should be pointed out that the question being addressed here was specific to viewing websites on SmartPhones and didn't go into tablets or apps which we may address in a future set of questions and blog post.&nbsp;</p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>Early Impressions of Google+</title><id>http://karelvredenburg.com/blog/2011/8/14/early-impressions-of-google.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://karelvredenburg.com/blog/2011/8/14/early-impressions-of-google.html"/><author><name>Karel Vredenburg</name></author><published>2011-08-15T02:24:08Z</published><updated>2011-08-15T02:24:08Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>I've been using Google+ during the early closed beta. You've got to hand it to Google that they know how to generate interest. Make a new service invitation only, invite the most well-know and prolific social media stars, and then give each person who comes on the service 150 invitations for their friends. Also, calling it an early beta gives them the opportunity to find, acknowledge, and fix numerous problems. &nbsp;</p>
<p><span class="full-image-float-right ssNonEditable"><span><img style="width: 200px;" src="http://karelvredenburg.com/storage/Googleplus.png?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1313376281147" alt="" /></span></span></p>
<p>I was struck by its clean visual design that is airy and light. Not surprisingly, Google adopted the now standard social media (Facebook) design pattern regarding the layout and basic interaction of the service itself. Where they introduced some innovation was in the concept and design of circles. It makes perfect sense to simply use the commonly used term for circles of friends as the way of organizing people. They also included a really nicely designed and implented drag and drop interaction mechanism for adding people to circles. However, moving people from one cirlce to another and having them no longer in the first circle isn't obvious. Google+ has improved upon Facebook's mechanism for directing updates to particular circles of friends. However, I worry that if this feature is used too much that we'll lose the wonderful diversity that currently exists on social networks. My biggest concern regarding Google+ is that social networking services are really only enablers of social interaction and as such are only as good as the people using them. If virtually nobody uses the service or if only one type of user uses it, then it loses its appeal. The early adopters of Google+ are the tech enthusiasts and tech stars. They tend to like it because they're seeing so much engagement from likeminded individuals. However, in order to be highly successful, Google+ will have to attract the less tech savy that just recently finally joined Facebook. &nbsp;That crowd is much less likely to move to another system no matter how good the tool turns out to be. Of course, Facebook isn't standing still either and the features that are currently more desireable on Google+ could quite easily be adopted by Facebook.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Those are my early impressions on Google+. &nbsp;However, I wanted to hear the views of others too so I posted the following tweet on my @IBMDesign account, "If you've tried it, what do you think of the design of the latest social networking site Google+?" and here are the replies.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<ul>
<li>G+ is very nice. Unfortunately they went about things the wrong way if they think they're going to switch fb users over...</li>
<li>Looks promising, but it still needs to mature a bit, particularly with regards to its mobile interfaces.</li>
<li>Pretty aweful, constantly having to scroll past pages of comments on things, stuff moves while reading/watching etc&nbsp;</li>
<li>Clean, easy and intuitive, it's gonna kick some asses at Facebook&nbsp;</li>
<li>Easy to use, and nice to have a circles.&nbsp;</li>
<li>Screens are very sparse, almost unstructured. The UI for assigning people to circles is nice.&nbsp;</li>
<li>They reinvented the wheel with additional spokes, the thing is, a wheel can run without the addons too&nbsp;</li>
<li>It's honestly mediocre. The revolutionary features just aren't enough to drag the fickle social networking audience off FB yet.&nbsp;</li>
<li>From 1 - 5 (5 being highest sat) I'd say 3.5&nbsp;</li>
<li>FB is just a social network, G+ is going to give a new whole experience to users, video, chat, social sharing in theirs homepages</li>
</ul>
<p>A quick sentiment analysis yields 40% positive, 50% neutral, 10% negative toned comments. So, it is still in early beta so we'll have to continue to watch Google+ as it develops further.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>]]></content></entry></feed>
