The bazaar is a hodgepodge of products from food to electronics. The layout is more often than not confusing  and visitors are bombarded with so many noises and cries from vendors that it is surprising how a purchase decision is made.

The mall seems to be exactly the opposite. You have signposts and maps telling you where to find whatever you might be looking to purchase. Attendants in the aisles will help you find a product that you are searching for. Muzak is playing in the background and just in case you do let your mind wander, you will be greeted with an advertising message.

These elements mentioned above are what we expect to see in a bazaar or department store. They are not hard to spot and as users we also expect to find these things in their respective environments.

The point of this comparison is that even though the bazaar and the mall perform the same function, the user experience of both are worlds apart. In case of the mall, the elements of user experience, the singboards, attendants and muzac, don’t serve an essential function to the retail process. Like the bazaar, they do not require active design in any sense. Yet, if we enter any retail store, the lack of these will make us uncomfortable just as the lack of hawking wares or the noise of haggling in a bazaar will be just as uncomfortable.

I’m really saying two things here:

1. Our picture of a good, contemporary retail store is defined largly by society and trends. This trend has been arrived at by an iterative design process. Each signboard, attendant and promotion stall has been placed at a specific location with a specific intention. On the other hand, as far as I know, no bazaar has ever been designed per se. It has grown and adapted to accommodate it’s users and merchants.

2. The elements that I am highlighting make what we refer to as the “ambience” of a place. What designers would call the ambient user experience.  An ambient user experience is what people experience while they are getting things done. Providing a good experience means incorporating elements of ambience. We should align these elements with our users’ expectations.

Pic: Crawford Market by superfamous

“‘…’Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

In 1958, Charles and Ray Eames — in The India Report — say while comparing a ‘Lota’ to the attitude that they hoped would be created by the National Institute of Design,

“… an attitude be generated that will appraise and solve the problems of our coming times with the same tremendous service, dignity and love that the Lota served its time.”

Both these quotes speak of love for others. You can love someone only if you know them.

Love thy user. Know thy user.

Your users are almost never like you. They don’t think like you. You know your product inside-out. You created it and were with it through every iteration. You decided how it would behave at every phase. But your users might be seeing it for the first time. They might be using it to accomplish a set of goals. They might have to use your product under peculiar conditions. They might just be poking around to see if it’s fun to play with.

Knowing your user will help you predict how they will behave. You won’t have to take design decisions based on your subjective preference. Knowing your user is important because it might reveal incorrect assumptions that you might have made. Knowing your users will give you insights into how they behave and where or when they struggle to get to an objective.

Charles Eames once told Ashoke Chatterjee — a former director of NID — that love is seeing the world through another persons eyes. Look through your users’ eyes to see what they need. This will allow you to create a product that not only empowers them but also attracts and captivates them.

Symbol

Is a means of representing any object, any person, any idea or situation with some type of mark.

Component

Is not just a part of a whole. It is a part of a whole which cannot be taken  away without changing the very nature of of the whole.

Complex

It comes from the Latin word embrace. Complex is not complicated. It is not the opposite of simple. Complicated has a quality of confusion to it. A complex thing might have many parts but would still posses orderliness. A complex thing may or may not be difficult to comprehend.

System

It comes from the Greek word sustema. A system is a complex whole of parts. These parts are related although the connections between them may or may not be visible. To understand a system, one should get a holistic view of the system and not should observe the way in which each parts affect each other in isolation from the system.

Structure

It is the arrangement of parts. It is also the manner in which they are arranged. Parts interconnect and interelate in order to make the structure work.

Form & Shape

All shapes are forms but not all forms are shapes. The difference being that shape is used for what is known and form is used for all types of figures – familiar or unfamiliar.

Display

Display means an arrangement of things or images so that they are deliberately presented in a way that it gets noticed. Display also refers to that part of the machine that must be watched, so that it can be controlled based on the information received from it.

I have knowingly not used design or art in any definition.  You may or may not agree with some of my definitions. They are always open to discussion.

In the language of design, the syntax is the overall structure of a product. In graphic design, it is the grid, the typography, the imagery.

Syntactics is also the name of the WordPress theme used on this site.

My reasons and objectives for this design:

• Because the internet has too many links.
• Because I’m O.C.D. (aren’t we all?)
• Because rules should dictate what a design should do. More broader the rules, the more concise and hence, better the result.
• I believe in minimum contrast with maximum clarity
• I believe in as little disturbance as possible, pushing white space around until  it fits where I want it to be.
• I believe in imperfection
• I believe in perfection through imperfection. Because we are never right the first time
• I like color, but not too much.
• I believe in art, I may not like it.



BUT…

I like following a lot of people. Around 112 as of writing this. OK, I know that relatively that’s not a lot of people to follow. I know there are people following well over a 1000 people. But that’s just it. I cant have a conversation with more than a 1000 people. And I’m not even talking about conversing simultaneously here.

My problem is that I’m actually losing out on conversations with people I know because of all the damn twoise!

What! You don’t know what twoise is? How could you? I just invented it.

Twitter + Noise = Twoise

Twoise is the static, random tweets you get from once interesting people you chose to follow but now you realise they serve no purpose. Twoise is the really interesting person you met at a conference whose tweets consist of nothing more than good morning, good night and all other greeting throughout the day. Twoise is @guykawasaki a.k.a. Spamasaki posting link after link to a site with a crazy story and also a link to alltop.

You get the basic idea, yes?

Now to be perfectly clear, I’m NOT blaming Twitter or any user for this. I understand that with Twitter a person can say whatever they want to and you have a choice to listen or not. For me Twitter is about conversations and from now on it going to stay that way. I’m not saying I’ll never follow more than 100 people again. Just that I will never follow 1000 people.

Sorry @guykawasaki for the dig. You’re a cool dude but I’m unfollowing you!

I’m used to seeing flight attendants walking up and down the aisles checking passengers before and after the tray table/seat belt message had been broad cast. So used to seeing them that just barely realised what web designers and flight attendants have in common.

In many user tests, I’ve noticed that people completely disregard hints while filling in forms. So when validating a form you need to draw attention to the specific field(s) that they missed out. On board the plane, the exact same thing was happening. A few passengers completely disregarded the tray table/seat-belt announcement. The flight attendants had to go up and down the aisles and “validate” that the passengers had moved their tray tables to the upright position and fastened their seat belts.

How many times do we ignore messages that could actually help us instead of hinder us? Next time you notice a helpful hint, pay attention. It might just save your life!

Now I’ve heard of Information Anxiety. It refers to stress caused by the an overload or lack of information. I think the same applies to inspiration. So I’ve taken the definition of Information overload from Usability First and just replaced the word information with inspiration .

Inspiration Anxiety: Stress caused by the inability to access or understand the inspiration you need, caused by inspiration overload, lack of clear organization to inspiration, insufficient inspiration, excessively difficult presentation of inspiration, etc.

What makes the iPod so compelling? It’s a beautiful and sensual consumer product, and Apple’s attention to the out-of-box and multi-channel experiences make its value much greater than the sum of its parts. But Apple also gave customers the iTunes Music Store. The music store, combined with the other innovations, made the iPod a platform that saved time and enabled choice. It was a series of innovations borne of product innovation, supply chain optimization, customer experience, service, and design, and much like the simple human-machine interfaces of the late 80s and early 90s, the iPod is a delightful way to interface with technology.

No mention of the Zune. Says alot about the designers in Microsoft!

Of course the next paragraph is about the XBox360.

I’m sorry. I couldn’t resist this. After all it is an “event”.

Original poster from here. Go get them!

The guy was one of my favourite authors. Sure, he wrote a few clunkers if you’d compare them to other Science Fiction novels, but I think he knew exactly what the Hollywood studios were looking for. You can’t deny that each of his books had excellent a good premise. Though they were based on science, only about 5-10 pages in each of his books dwelled on the actual explanation. The rest had things being blown up/ eaten, bleeding, dying, shape-shifting, getting colder or evolving. Although they did all those things with strict adherence to reality/history/physics. I believe this because of all the references that he would include behind every novel

Bottom-line: His books were good, not bad. There’s plenty of worse crap out there (ahem… Chetan Bhagat). Crichton was a best-seller. End of story. He will be missed.