It’s great, but there’s one simple yet utterly important feature I see missing on too many mobile site versions: a link to the full site. While it’s right to offer the mobile optimized version as the default front door when the user’s on a mobile device, the user may still want, or need, to access the full site. In the worst case, the limited content on the mobile site hasn’t been updated with the same info as the full site. I recently had to go to a company’s site to check the address of their new office, but the mobile site still had the old address. I had been to the full site before and knew they had the new address there, but as I was using my iPad the code on the site forced me to the mobile version with no access to the full site. And this was the site of a large digital agency. So I had no way to get their new address on the go.

My other recommendations for mobile site design, in a short summary, are these:
2.    Simplicity: single column layouts work best.
3.    Small and targeted: reduce the amount of content.
4.    Functional: present the navigation so it works on a mobile device; touch UI or not.
5.    Easy: minimize text entry and scrolling.
6.    Take advantage of inbuilt functionality: e.g. GPS/location aware, maps, make calls, save contacts.

Karri Ojanen

The news about this magical panda bear started an interesting conversation in the office. Seeing how Google has, for most part, had a much stronger emphasis on engineering than design in the past, building services that are highly functional without polished design, Cosmic Panda and the recent Google Apps redesign party seem like an afterthought. So does design matter? What role does it play?

Engineering drives technology. We are living through another revolution much like the Industrial Revolution in the 18th and 19th centuries that will have and already has had a tremendous effect on not just a few products, services, or an area of products and services, but our whole society and economic system.

The Watt steam engine which propelled the Industrial Revolution in the UK and the world wasn’t necessarily so beautiful to look at and it wasn’t built by a designer, but a Scottish mechanical engineer, James Watt. Similarly, the key functionality of Google’s products wouldn’t have been built without engineers.

However, after the first wave of new innovation (in terms of technology), companies must look for something else to differentiate their products and to keep them competitive. I’m sure Google recognizes that polished, slick interfaces and overall design weren’t a big part of their work initially, but that they’re giving it a bigger role now.

James Watt didn’t build his steam engine out of scratch, either. Rather, he came up with significant design enhancements to the Newcomen steam engine which was invented 50 years earlier. So he was a designer, too, and not just an engineer.

In the computer world, I think many would argue that Microsoft’s products and the whole PC “model” have been based on a more engineering-minded model than Apple. Apple’s now more desirable because of the design they apply. Both a PC and a Mac do the same things, essentially, like the iRiver e100 and the iPod Classic are both portable media players, but Apple’s products are (starting to) sell more because of the difference in design. Because people find them more desirable, simply better looking, or because they’re, arguably, more usable.

It’s probably this chain where technology and engineering always seem to come first and then design, which leads companies and individuals think that design can be applied after. That it’s possible to create a technologically advanced product and apply great usability to it later. But as we know, it doesn’t work – engineering and design are inseparable and you need both to make a good product truly great.

The fact that Google’s done so well with technological innovation, with engineering alone (if you believe in that thought) so far doesn’t mean that they’re the best, that they couldn’t be beaten by someone else who gets design better than they do. At its peak in 2008, Nokia dominated over 40% of the global cell phone market. And Nokia were, in many ways, a very engineering-minded, engineer-led company, with their 150 year history deeply rooted in technological innovation and engineering. At the time, their products were ahead of everyone else. Their enormous success was built on the introduction of new technology, adding one feature after another, and the highly efficient global distribution chain they had.

When Apple came along, they didn’t invent the cell phone, they didn’t invent the MP3 player, they didn’t even coin the term ‘smartphone’. They weren’t the first to introduce the use of touch screens in cell phones. But they brought in new design, and… We know the story. The smartphone became much more desirable, thanks to the new thinking, some technological but mostly design, that Apple brought to the market.

While design alone doesn’t make the wheels turn at first, it does always play a role in the success of any product, together with technology.

Karri Ojanen

I find Marc’s text connecting very closely with the message in my post from two years ago, which then turned into a couple of follow-ups. Work in interactive channels demands leadership just as any work needs leadership, and the most accurate, efficient kind of leadership comes from people who understand the importance of the functional side of design, the interactivity, the user experience, and know how to research it, define, design, and present it. It takes a whole team of engineers, writers, designers and others to create digital advertising, products, and services, but user experience and interaction designers are the ones who should be the closest to being the new creative directors.

Karri Ojanen

Wireframe Stencils for Keynote
Do you use Keynote to wire and prototype? Here’s a good set of over 70 hand made, scalable UI elements. Get ‘em here.

Illustrator Wireframe Toolkit
A really stylish, beautiful set of sketchy UI elements for Illustrator, including stuff for iPad and smartphone designs. Available here.

500 Storyboard Tutorials and Resources
These are on a site for film makers, which makes sense, but these are important lessons for interaction designers as well. Check it out.

Recommendations for Usability in Practice (Card Set)
A free card set including recommendations for usability in product development practice. PDF here.

Karri Ojanen

As easy as it is to agree with the message in Neil’s post – that wireframes aren’t good at defining dynamic on-page interactions, that they can be too prescriptive and that they add unnecessary drag to the design process – there’s one thing to say about wireframes and rapid prototyping that is pointed out in the one lone comment to Neil’s article: what’s the difference? Aren’t rapid prototyping, sketching and mocking up just different versions of wireframing?

Maybe the real problem with wireframes isn’t the concept of a wireframe itself, but how we we use and create wireframes?

Paper prototyping isn’t necessary called wireframing, but the elements of any paper prototype are, at least in my mind, simple wireframes, sketched on paper. Paper prototyping is often the most efficient form of rapid prototyping. Death to inefficient, static, overly prescriptive uses of wireframes, yes, but long live the quick and dirty, plain and simple, dynamic and lively wireframe as part of rapid prototypes!

Karri Ojanen

I thought that I was going to write my own recap of the conference, but with my recent move to New York, new job and everything else, I’ve simply run out of time, and since others have already posted a plethora of great recaps elsewhere (probably doing a better job than I ever would’ve), I’m just going to give links to a couple of those here:

• UX Booth’s UX Lx wrap-up
• David Malouf’s report (3 parts) at Johnny Holland Magazine

Thanks again to Bruno Figueiredo and the team for putting together an excellent conference and for having me there to speak among all the great people.

His tweet made me think of a number of things I think should be common sense, knowledge and understanding in this industry by now. I made a list of some of those. Besides Matt’s tweet, my list is inspired by the Incomplete Manifesto for Growth by Bruce Mau, and if you end up reading through my list, I encourage you to continue by reading through Bruce’s.

Most of what we think we discover now as “new” was in fact already discovered before
Recently, I watched the documentary “Objectified“, directed by Gary Hustwit who also did “Helvetica“. Listening to people like Bill Moggridge talk in the film, I had several moments where I thought that many of the fundamental insights, thoughts and even methodology that people now feel like they’re discovering as “new” in the context of software, interactive media and interaction design where actually already discovered earlier, but in a different context. What’s hard for people is to take that knowledge and to apply it to a different context. That’s why, even if the things we think we are discovering now aren’t genuinely “new”, there’s tremendous value in rediscovering those things and applying them to the current context.

Clients don’t envision the future, they inform the present
It’s way too easy to blame almost every challenge in this industry on the client. Henry Ford said, “If I had asked my customers what they wanted, they would have said “a faster horse.”" If we’re the experts in this business, we need to be the ones who envision the future of it.

Interactive media works best when it’s… interactive
TV and video still work, books still work, great stories are definitely still great stories. Banner ads may have a purpose and some of the content on YouTube gets hugely popular. But the one thing about interactive, online media that is different to traditional TV, radio and print is that it’s two-way communication, it allows instant interaction. The best solutions online are those that encourage and use interactivity to the max.

“Design is not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works.”
That’s a quote from Steve Jobs. But I wish that it wouldn’t need to be – I wish that everybody who develops solutions for interactive media would understand that visual design, technical design and user experience design shouldn’t be separated. Form and function aren’t to be divided into separate processes – they are one.

Great design isn’t based on research alone, it’s research + intuition
The great “big ideas” of the digital age won’t come from academic research alone, they’ll come from intuition, from a real “design sense”, from the designers’ and developers’ understanding of today’s world and the people who consume media.

Separate the problems and you’ll mess up the solution
We are all strategic thinkers, developers, designers and writers, on some level. Of course, we all have our titles and own specific areas of expertise, and so it should be, but when we brainstorm, discuss great ideas and seek for solutions, the technologists, the strategists and the experienceists should all be around the same table. And never mind who ends up leading that process, or who the greatest ideas end up coming from – arguing about who should lead will only distract us from getting to our common goal: finding the best answer.

From Bruce Mau: “Growth happens. Whenever it does, allow it to emerge. Learn to follow when it makes sense. Let anyone lead.”

Keep up your connection to the work at ground level
Without a hands on approach to its business on all levels of management, the company will lose its touch with the reality. Those at the top level of management should be as connected to the everyday reality of the business as those on the lowest levels – as much as possible.

If you talk about Twitter to your clients and discuss it with your peers, make sure you have tried it yourself. If you’re asked to develop the design for a new blog, make sure you’ve blogged. I find a surprising amount of people in this industry who haven’t actually used the things they talk about.

Think of not just the media you can buy, but also the media you can earn
Learn to think of ‘media’ in new ways. Don’t think of just the media you can buy, but also the media you can earn from your audience, if you get them engaged. And then how that media goes back, and gets redeveloped by both you and the audience again. When you’re thinking of designing an effective interactive solution, think of building an engine, not a billboard.

The effort to control will more often lead to loss of control
An effort to control what is being said about you will most often lead to even more things being said about you. Instead of trying to control the conversation and trying to stop it, see what you can make out of it. When there is a problem, the only way to fix it is to fix it. Stopping people from bringing the problem up will only make it worse.

You need vision first before you can develop passion
“Social media”, “user experience design”, “platform solutions” – all of those (and many more) are just buzzwords until you come up with a plan.

Too many companies have not decided whether they want to conserve the past, define the future, or just turn to others for leadership. They lack vision, but they keep asking their workers for passion.

Karri Ojanen

Apple iPad
Things were different ahead of the iPad’s launch than they were back in 2007, prior to the launch of the first version of the iPhone. While many had thought that Apple may enter the mobile phone market even years before it actually happened, no one managed to quite predict what the device would be like. But with the iPad, predicting what the Apple tablet would look like before the company officially announced it was easier. The surprise element of the iPad was smaller than the wow effect that the iPhone caused.

The feeling after the launch was that the iPad didn’t live up to the dreams and hopes of many. People who were waiting for something revolutionary woke up to see the new device as “just a big iPhone”. However, the tablet also had its instant supporters: some claim it’s the perfect computer for their mom, while others simply say that whatever the iPad lacks in its first incarnation (camera, for example) will make it to the next version.

I question the utility of the iPad, even for my mom, as one of her favorite things to do on a computer is to make Skype video calls. I also think she wouldn’t respond too well to the on-screen keyboard. But let’s keep in mind that the device hasn’t started shipping yet, and very few people have handled it, let alone used it in any real-life scenario. The future of it will lie in the hands of app developers – maybe even more than it lies in the hands of the company’s own designers.

For interaction designers, the iPad is an exciting new opportunity. Luke Wroblewski has written a number of terrific articles about the iPad, including a list of new multi-touch interactions and iPad design tools and resources. And Matt Gommel, a renowned iPhone developer, challenges a number of preconceptions about the tablet, including the “just a big iPhone” claim, in his blog. While we’re waiting for the actual device (and an iPad version of OmniGraffle), let’s get our tools and templates ready. Even if the iPad doesn’t instantly appear as big of a game changer as the iPhone, it, together with the HP Slate and other, upcoming tablets, is still the beginning of a new kind of personal computing experience.

Windows Phone 7 Series
Microsoft seems to have done what it hadn’t really done before: taken a totally new, fresh approach to something it had already built. The new Phone 7 Series looks and acts totally different than previous versions of Windows Mobile, incl. version 6.5, which will now continue to live on as Windows Phone Classic. The 7 Series promises to be, finally, finger-friendly, complete with multitouch, and it looks significantly different than any of the competing touch-based mobile UIs.

The initial response to 7 Series seems to have been positive, though some point out that the bold new design may not work so well in practice. Luke Wroblewski has been exploring Microsoft’s new UI as well, and written an excellent post about its information resolution vs. the iPhone. Edward Tufte responds to it here. While at first I find it quite easy to agree with Tufte’s comment that “the WP7S layout and typography have a looseness found in commercial art and marketing, an inappropriate metaphor for a handheld information and communication device”, I think it may be premature to call Microsoft’s idea “inappropriate”, when they’re trying to redefine the mobile UI so drastically. Let’s see how users react to it.

Karri Ojanen

How Does It Work?

That user experience design should be, on some level, the responsibility of the whole team, and not just one department or person, must sound like common sense to most. The statement that user experience design needs to be integrated into everything the team does is quite easily repeatable mantra. We’ll get there, if we just keep educating our team about UXD, right?

There is a great variety of different situations, agencies, teams and individuals. The approach where a highly specialized UX designer works together with “creatives” who lead other aspects undoubtedly does work in some places. But there are other issues that, in the end, may not be solved by that solution.

CD vs. UX Designer

Traditionally at ad agencies, the ideation process is led by the creative director together with the copywriter and the art director. They develop the Big Idea: the basis of the advertising product that is then created. As the center of that process, the creative director commonly uses the most amount of power to shape the idea.

That scenario, in and of itself, may not be in direct conflict with the role of a user experience designer. But if people agree that user experience design is multi-faceted and not just about usability, information architecture or any other one, separable and highly specialized field, and if people also agree that user experience design is not a checkbox, not just one step in the process, then doesn’t it start to sound like the user experience designer also needs to have a more directorial position in the process? And, vice versa, the creative director needs to have a very solid understanding of UXD himself. Andrew Maier wrote a good article about User Experience Designer vs. Creative Director for UX Booth in September, and I recommend it as further reading. What are your thoughts on it?

Traditional Advertising vs. Advertising in the Digital Era

Today’s best ad campaigns are not campaigns at all: they’re highly functional, self-sustaining platforms, as testified by AdWeek in their choice to award Nike Plus as the “digital campaign of the decade”. They’re more like services and tools, real products, than just effective messaging, like the Big Ideas of the past. If the creative director keeps leading the ideation process to create Big Ideas along the same lines as in the past, while a user experience designer brings UXD-thinking to it, how do the real killer concepts, ideas of functionality, not just messaging, that the world needs today, come up? Jim Lansbury has written a great post about this for Adweek: Goodbye, Art & Copy — Hello, Idea Engineers, and R/GA’s CCO Nick Law wrote an excellent description of the situation back in March ’08: The Next Creative Revolution.

Proven Models

The old models of creating advertising are well tested and proven over decades of traditional marketing. There’s no reason why they should be completely disregarded now.

But a more radical, new model of the creation process, to produce the kind of functional concepts and platforms I described above, has already been proven as well. As an example, in the Nordics there are agencies whose steady stream of Lions, Eurobests, Webbys and other awards hasn’t gone unnoticed in North America, either. Many of those agencies and the people they employ didn’t come from a long traditional advertising background, but have built their work on a different model and mindset.

When I worked in the Nordics myself, in most cases we didn’t have people with the creative director title. Instead, we had concept designers: ideation leaders who, together with the team, guided the development towards functional concepts while bringing in a strong sense of user experience design and an understanding of interaction and information architecture. Depending on the project and the idea, there were then also other, even more specialized UXD types who were brought in to help work the initial idea more in detail later in the process.

At best at those agencies, we created concepts quite similar to the thinking behind Nike Plus: platforms for interaction with the customer. Concepts like an ongoing online supermodel search for an international fashion retailer, and a game-like fundraising tool for a charitable organization.

Dare to Think Different

Like I said, this may not be the model that, literally taken, works for everybody. But simply taking the old model of advertising and slapping on a new layer doesn’t work, either. That’s why people on both sides should dare to rethink their models now. The changes we see in the world around us aren’t minor. It’s a major shift. It takes a new mindset to make it work in the best possible way.

Agencies that aren’t yet fully committed to the pieces of UX design they have started to employ should think of their approach and truly define, what is the value of UXD for them? Once that’s been defined, they need to decide how to make things work so that everybody gets that value out of the process. UX designers, we need to think of how we can best give that value to the team. How do we contribute to not just user experience design, but idea generation as a whole? What is our role in advertising? How do we define it? There are many answers, not just one, and I think we should all dare to think of at least some. The first post I wrote sparked some interesting conversation – I would now like to invite you to continue it below.

Karri Ojanen

Since this was such a short show, I didn’t concentrate on covering every aspect of agile process models, but rather focused on a few thoughts about how we can make the shift in our mindsets from waterfall to a more agile environment. The slides are up on SlideShare now with text notes, with video/audio coming a bit later, and embedded below. Please share your thoughts in the comments. Thanks again to @meredi, @emenel and @jeffkraemer for having me, and to @shawnkono, Paul McInerney, @vveerrg and @IAUXLearning for their presentations, and everyone for the great discussions after.