Bill McLaren Spring 2005
CEP 817 Final Paper
Lost his Mind in the Sea of Design
He wandered aimlessly through the chamber, struggling to find his sanity. The room was lighted from above and was comfortably furnished. They had provided everything he had requested, a 12-inch Powerbook G4, a dual processor G5 connected to a pair of 30-inch Cinema displays, all handily networked with an Airport Extreme. The walls were covered with an interesting array of inspiring posters, helpful tools, and plasma displays. He had his choice of a leather recliner, one of the three office chairs (the latest samples from the top office furniture designers in the country), various bar stools, a deep couch, a narrow couch, a traditional kitchen table and chairs, or an intricately designed area of floor that allowed a person to actually form it to their particular seating need. All of these options, yet nothing looked comfortable. This was his nemesis, his greatest fear, and all too often his real situation. Everything was there for him to take, yet he can’t decide where to begin. He was aware that these accommodations should be enough to allow him to finish this quest, but something was missing.
No, it wasn’t just his sanity; that was here somewhere, he just needed to find it. It was something bigger, more important, like the latch that holds the hood of a car in place as the car is driven. Suddenly, one of the plasma screens went blank for a split second, replacing a scenic woodland scene with a one-word marquee. This word traveled slowly around the screen, reminding him what it was that he felt he was missing. Yes, somewhere within all of this technology he could probably find his sanity, but first as the screen was suggesting, he must find his “Purpose.”
***************
I don’t think he is unique, but I do envy the workspace described. There are many pieces that must be fit together for a person to be productive, some pieces are physical, some are psychological, and others are environmental, but in the end none of us can do much if we don’t have a purpose. In February, I began a digital quest to fulfill the purpose of completing a course for a Master’s Degree. This quest is in its final stages and with this tale I hope to enlighten you on some of the lessons I learned and possibly help you avoid some of the traps that slowed my journey. He is I and I am him, so please enjoy what is now his story (or history if you like).
***************
He growled at the screen, told it, in various sets of harsh words, how much he hated that it could read his mind and offer him such clear ideas, with such ease. Grumbled that the stupid machines knew he needed purpose, but no one else seemed to understand what he meant by this. Maybe that was his point. Maybe, he was intended to work with these plastic boxes that count and calculate in ways that make everything possible, until he understood how they were so efficient. These machines that turn simple ones and zeros into everything - from the images on the walls to the story he will watch on DVD later this year when Pixar releases it. He growled again as the screen changed, suggesting a synonym for purpose, slowly scrolling the word “Reason.”
Being human can be very difficult. The rational computer is simply running a program, designed to inspire and keep the stupid human on task. “Purpose”, “Reason”, and “Goal” are the words that will cycle across the plasma that is most visible to the human, if said human has not worked productively in the last 15 minutes. This wait time has been carefully calculated based on the averages of many different studies and is sufficient in that it allows the human to take a break, physically and psychologically, but brings them back to task with-in the accepted “loss-of-interest” window. The computer is not guessing or obeying an impulse. It is following a set command that it follows every time the conditions are present. For the human it is different.
He knew it was a command. In fact, one day he used well over fifteen minutes of “productive time”, to identify where the command was located, which he justified as research about how the computer knew what it “felt.” Unfortunately that knowledge was not enough, he knew the location of this information but still felt like the computer was able to control him. The problem was that he could not separate his comprehension from his fear. His real fear was of failure. His original task was to develop a new browser that would allow the user total control of the World Wide Web. He worked countless hours trying to define strengths and weaknesses of various existing browsers. He identified, searched, and identified more. From this effort, he realized that more than a browser overhaul was needed.
Originally, he would have been content to succeed and give the world a new browser, but now he has become consumed with a new mission - to give the world in new Web. His intellectual turmoil stemmed from the fact that his new mission was not what this workroom was intended to accomplish. He was being paid to work on browsers. He has been given these excellent working conditions and powerful machines to check and double check the value of the originals, or predecessors, of the browser that he would create. What began as a simple process of comparing the good and the bad, turned into his personal version of The Shining by Stephen King, or The Shinning, if you are a Simpsons fan. Each day, each hour offered a round of mental attacks. First he felt guilt. Guilt because as hard as he was working he felt he was accomplishing very little. There was so much to see and so many things to compare. He tried to accomplish his tasks by being organized, he attempted to find ways to keep track of which browser’s he had looked at, what pieces of each browser he liked, and what pieces he did not like. He made spreadsheets and various other notations on his computer screens. Constantly he copied evidence and compared data. The whole process was overwhelming, but it led to a new approach. He decided that the best idea was to isolate aspects of the browsers to evaluate, that way he could easily compare the pieces. Instead of trying to track different strengths and weaknesses, he would track general tasks and compare how each browser handled those tasks.
His inspiration for this solution was a group of steps offered, to a group of teachers, by a Professor named Punya. This class was studying the idea of design at its essence while redesigning actual web sites. A person named McCloud is given original credit for the steps, but Punya gave them to his class, so he must be mentioned as well. The group of teachers would learn from their teachers, seven words. These seven words, when applied can be used to coordinate any act of creation.
The first two words are idea and purpose. Ideas and purpose begin as the most important pieces of many creative ventures. Whether the task is painting or poetry, a sales pitch or a lesson plan, every creative effort must begin with an idea. His idea began as a hope for a better browser. What he found was that even the most specific idea can change. This task began as a simple goal. His purpose was outlined in the contract he had signed. Instead of being finished with this simple test, he was now facing a very difficult decision. His ethics told him that his commitment was to create a new browser that offered all the good features of the various existing browsers and a few new tricks that set it apart from the others. In his mind, that was pure, simple, work ethic. His conflict was centered on the fact that the good and the bad judgment could not be directly connected to a browser’s ability to accomplish certain tasks well. Each browser was valuable for different reasons, in different situations, and therefore none could simply be discarded because it failed at a given task.
This dilemma brought him to the third of the seven words, Punya’s class was discussing. McCloud considers form to be the second step in the creation process. Form comes from the physical controls that will allow a person to use a creation. As he considered the concept of form, it became obvious that the Internet was as much of a problem, as the browsers. Each browser was designed to help a certain target audience to navigate the Internet. Every user had a different goal from the next person, but somehow a browser was supposed to serve us all. Yet in all this design, no one was considering the body of information (the Internet) an independent entity. Traditionally a library organizes information so that it is easy to find. The Internet, possibly the largest library ever, has no such policy. Information is collected, but never organized or sorted by the library itself. Information is organized and sorted only by the various patrons and their searches, for the brief time that their search exists. So he began to consider how his browser would operate and function, which caused him to realize that his solution would be based solely on his concepts and methods of search and navigation, and would not solve this inherent problem of the structure and organization of that entity we call the Internet. He was faced with the question of how do I blend my ideas with a bigger populations’ needs. Finally, he decided that this project might actually drive him insane, since each positive seemed always to be countered by a negative, while the bigger problem loomed in the background, and taunted him with chaotic laughter.
He felt himself spiraling, caught between his original project and this wicked revelation. He had not expected that changing his focus to the concept of idiom, (which, according to McCloud, is the consideration style or genre in your delivery method) would lead him to an entirely new purpose, but that is what happened. His task was focused on browsers. They were his genre. The problem facing browsers was that they must manage the entire spectrum, and quantity, of the Internet. He saw that this as an impossible task, no matter how powerful he made the new browser. Which left him with the difficult decision of creating a very powerful browser that does a better job of managing the Internet and/or taking on the task of developing a new Internet that would allow browsers to function more effectively, because it would deliver a body of information that was organized. Idiom seemed to hold the key. All design must meet the needs of the target audience, as well as the needs of the general user. If he chose to develop the browser it should fit a given set of user needs, instead of being designed to work with all the genres available on the Internet. This concept sounds like the same basic plan, but his vision was rather shocking.
Like Holden Caufield, in J.D. Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye, ran from the responsibility of growing up, he tried to push this new theory away from his current task, yet was consumed by the possibilities he could see if he followed his vision. He tried to watch the message boards and participate in the conversations, but was plagued by an obsession with solving all his problems simultaneously. Everything seemed relevant. He found sites that were intended to archive, which course means store for safekeeping, that achieved the task of storing but could easily also be used to promote and expose the products they were saving, if simple details were addressed. It could be done at the Internet level, the browser level, or the site designers could achieve it. Again he faced a dilemma, as his job was simply to design a tool that will allow us to discover the sites and in the most productive and easy to use method, yet he found himself increasingly concerned with the question of why these web pages and websites seemed to misunderstand the scope and opportunity presented by an increasingly educated and Internet savvy audience. He decided that it was reasonable to conduct a basic study by redesigning one of these archive sites, with the intention of establishing how his browser would adjust to the different possible user needs through the consideration of the developers intent. If he created his vision, it would be a browser that adapted to different needs. He could create various interfaces that would allow the user to coordinate their searching with their ultimate goals. Suddenly he felt like he was back on track; by transcending genre with a browser powerful enough to tailor itself to any user’s needs, he could stop worrying about the fact that the Internet itself was flawed.
Now these seven words and McCloud’s method were starting to make sense to him. He was able to see that original focus again because the idea of a strong and useful browser would solve all the problems he was struggling with. His site redesign became a microcosm for these bigger issues. The original site, offered good information and reasonable access to out of print work. Unfortunately, like disconnected search results of a weak browser, this site was completely dependant upon the skills of a strong user. His purpose was to create a better, more functional site. His form was focused on the idea of allowing the user to get to information faster and allow them to backtrack more easily. This archive did not allow the user to quickly preview the results and options available. If a person doesn’t find what they are looking for right away, they should be able to easily return to the search results and possibly even be able to compare multiple results at once. The CAPA archive is set up so that a person must navigate through new pages, each time they follow a link. His answer was to use frames in his site-redesign. Many would challenge this idea, since it is limiting in some ways, but just as the flaws of the Internet itself had great implications on how he would redesign the browser concept, the limits of frames were smaller than benefits they would offer. Frames limit the user because documenting information becomes more complicated. Although gathering “bookmarks” and printing are available, the user must understand how to view the frame in its own page to easily access these features. The goal of using frames is to allow the user to organize their screen in a way that allows one browser window to be divided into multiple windows. This is both the benefit and the deficiency of this kind of site design, as the user can see multiple pages at once and can compare information from each page (if the site is designed correctly). This can be very useful if you are looking for specific information or if you want to compare various search results.
These successes led him to the next step. He saw a pattern had developed; his redesign followed many of the rules of poetry. Using the frames allowed him to let people search, preview, and sift through the information following any pattern they chose. Like the freedom poetry, as a genre, offered many writers, this free flow of information made the archive much more user friendly. The next step in the redesign was to determine what was necessary to create this interface. What would need to change and how would the changes be implemented. McCloud calls this structure. The structure is important because it allows the designer to define the specific intentions behind the attributes of the site. His site redesign was focused on changing the navigation controls and adding a different information flow to the CAPA site. The structure issues he faced consumed the most time in his process. He needed to develop a frameset that allowed the user to gain better access to information, while limiting the negative attributes of frames. To do this he tried many different combinations and made various decisions about what was the minimum space needed for each frame of information. As it did in his model, the structural aspect of his browser redesign was also the most consuming piece. He found himself back where he began, because he was stuck on the fact that the true structural solution seemed like it should be in the framework of the Internet itself, instead of building a solution into the functionality of a browser.
Another challenge offered by Punya to his students, was to define quality. Everyone who has used the Internet has seen the strange and disconnected results that are returned from some searches. Obviously, browsers are not the only component involved in a search, but to many users the browser is the interface used to search for a topic. A designer must take this into account that these users see no difference between a browser and a search engine. Essentially, they must build their browser to function with this misconception or else it will be too complicated for this set of users. Which brings our designer back to the discussion of defining quality. This discussion led to many various ideas and theories. One point that impacted the CAPA redesign significantly, and therefore the browser redesign as well, was the idea that whether or not we can define quality all of us can identify when one product is better than another. This point was discussed at length because of the implications it has on the entire process of creation/work. If there isn’t a clear definition of quality, than how can we officially rate or rank anything? This becomes a problem because of the extrinsic nature of our society. We are socially driven to seek out those things that are rated as the best by this or that group of “rating professionals”. He knew that seeking out those things that represent, for each of us, the best answer for the individual problems we face, would be better and lead to greater happiness. But he also knew that he must strive to succeed in this world, so the struggle for individual answers must be internal. Thus he fought to keep his sanity while he designed a website and browser on the outside, but was attempting to discover a method to organize and maintain all the information that is the World Wide Web on the inside.