Design Principles II
From IEOR 170 Spring 2007
Required Readings
Adopting Technology Bill Moggridge, Designing Interactions, Chap 4. (note - this article is a little bit long, but I hope you will feel it's fun to read!)
Discussions
Please post your critiques/comments on the required readings below. Note - Please put a whole line == ~~~~ == at the beginning of your submitted critique, so the wiki system will index, sign and date your submission automatically.
Note
For students who have trouble in submitting their comments, please check this guide on edit conflicts.
[edit] Bryan Boling 03:57, 27 January 2007 (PST)
“Adopting Technology”
It was interesting to see the development of various consumer products from concept through multiple generations. It was also interesting to hear this through many authors, generally the creators and inventors of the interfaces and devices discussed. Although I have yet to work on a real world project team, I can relate to the challenges that come with refining technology in order to captivate a larger consumer base. Often in my design courses as an undergrad the final projects have been relatively complicated for an ignorant user. Although someone with a general understanding of my project may be able to use the device, the prototypes don’t tend to be immediately obvious. However, as was discussed throughout this article, as the design is refined and analyzed the human-machine interface becomes simpler leading to an increase in potential consumers. A good example of this from the article was the discussion of the advent of the digital camera. As the technology for digital photography emerged, the cameras were generally less intuitive than the point and shoot cameras most of us own today. In the end, this article provided an interesting perspective on the evolution of many common modern devices from their conception to the technology we know today.
[edit] Esha Datta 14:42, 28 January 2007 (PST)
"Adopting Technology"
I thought this article was really interesting as you were able to gain insight into the issues involved in introducing new technologies from many different perspectives and through a variety of concrete examples. It is a good point that one must keep in mind the enthusiast, professional, and consumer when designing a product. I also thought it was interesting how companies often must try to predict the future when designing, such as when Kodak had to envision the needs of digital camera users. I also especially enjoyed the pictures of prototypes for future printers for digital photographs.
[edit] Erin Palermo 23:47, 28 January 2007 (PST)
"Adopting Technology" Though the article was quite long, I really enjoyed reading it. I disagree with the opinion of 'the inventor,' that it is no longer the inventor's place once the technology enters the 'professional' phase. It talks about the design needing to be reliable and perform consistently, but an inventor is still able to make necessary adjustments on their own creation to make sure that it is ok to use. Also, the comments about the phone call are interesting. They are completely opposite of our mentality today. Everyone needs to have a cell phone, especially those ages 18 and over. If you miss calls, you want to be able to see that, and call people back. Not wait around and have other people call you back. People want to be in control of their own social lives, and cell phones are the mechanisms by which they can do that. I liked the commentary regarding driving and implementing a computer, especially the part that talked about how strange it would be to type directions into a car, when really we need tactile feedback to make the driving experience better. I really enjoyed the story about Kodak and digital photography. A lot went into designing user-friendly digital photography devices. I enjoyed reading about failed methods and attempts, before getting the final ideas right. Also, the iPod story was interesting, because we use that device on a daily basis. It's weird to think that it has only been around for a few years. Apple has successfully tapped into user needs, so that we can't imagine life without it.
[edit] Patrick Liu 15:10, 29 January 2007 (PST)
"Adopting Technology"
The section where the author talked about age group research was particularly interesting to me. Based on my personal experience, I do agree that kids, ages fourteen to seventeen, that talk on the phone a lot show a sign of life. I found it interesting that their research, at the time, for eighteen year olds resulted with such ironic conclusions. Now a day’s people of all age groups cannot live without a cell phone, text messaging, picture phones, and cell phone internet. This is just another example of how technology can be ahead of its time. I also found it interesting that Mat Hunter faced a challenge of not knowing how to design the camera because he was unsure of the technology he was working with. I feel like many students believe they have these great million dollar ideas, but they do not have the resources (money) nor do they know if they technology is up to date with their idea. Lastly, David Kelley proves a point when he states that learning a programming language is not very interesting until you are able to apply it to a specific project. I believe not when it comes to learning anything, it is not particularly interesting until you can utilize that subject in a real world situation and actually witness a result. The culmination of the progress along with the desire to create an unique result is what creates a well designed product.
[edit] Brian Loo 11:23, 30 January 2007 (PST)
“Adopting Technology” This read was quite long, but very enjoyable to read. It highlighted technology development, overall design, and user adaptation for varies products that we have all seen or can understand. From the start of the article, it caught my interest from the photos that illustrate the complexity of our remote controllers in addition to the discussion of technology development of very familiar products like camera and Ipod. One interesting point the article rises is that in the “professional” phase, the inventor no longer develops the technology but has to meet the business criteria. This idea reminded me of a pitfall that IDEO discussed in the video and a previous article about limiting the capabilities for design. In the professional phase, the inventor can invent other concepts that are aimed at making business goals like re-inventing a product to standardization for mass production or re-designing the supply chain to incorporate cheaper costs for the existing product concept. Another interesting highlight was the discussion about teenagers and cell phones. As I look back at my pre-college days, the results are completely true about interaction with the phone. Finally, the article discusses the various design and development stages of various products’ prototypes that have failed and succeeded like the Ipod, how to turn a car, and cameras.
[edit] Rakesh Vij 12:19, 30 January 2007 (PST)
Adopting Technology: In this reading it is explained that a technology is adapted in three phases: the enthusiast phase, the professional phase, and the consumer phase. Enthusiasts are those people that love the product and those who exploit it. The professional phase is those people who use the product to mainly help them perform their work or job better. Lastly the consumer phase in where the everyday consumer uses the product and gets to enjoy the product. Usually the product has to sell well and gain enough volume on the business level before it can become affordable on the consumer level. Also the design of the product has to be good so that consumers will want to purchase it. It is essential to find a balance between price and usability here and thus it is very important that design is very good. An example of a bad design that is given in the reading is the many VCRs that are designed so poorly that no one knows how to program the time and just leave it with the flashing 12:00. The reading then goes into a closer look at automobiles and photography showing how they have progressed and relates to their increasingly complex design. It discusses the path that Kodak followed in creating "interaction architecture" in the digital photography field. Finally the reading talks about the accomplishments in design of the iPod and iTunes. It is surprising that something with not the best in technology can be so successful simply due to good design.
[edit] Ricky Surachman 11:54, 30 January 2007 (PST)
“Adopting Technology” Although so far, this is the longest article for this class, I actually find that this article is really interesting and fun to read. In this article, we can find many stories on how various products are developed. One of the story that I like is about the cell phone survey which shows how wrong Telecom industry is about their customers. This shows how you shouldn't make assumption before selling your products. Another interesting story in this article is about iPod. I really amazed on how many people prefer to use iPod instead of other mp3 player. But after reading this story, I realize that the success of iPod is not only because of the design, but also because iPod provides many features that other mp3 players fail to offer.
[edit] Joshua Funamura 13:42, 30 January 2007 (PST)
"Adopting Technology"
The inventor's part is important in bringing forth the technology, but it really is the designer's ability to "do something interesting" that really makes a product exciting and fit for the consumer phase. It was fun to see the interesting things the designers did that shaped - or didn't shape - what we have today. I had a pre-DC210 Kodak digital camera, and it lacked the capability to perform the elements of Suri's important framework for consumer digital photography. Nowadays, every digital camera has a realtime screen, similar features like the panorama assist (though not all as well as Canon's continues to be), and despite the tremendous leap of onboard computing ability since 1998, almost every camera I've seen uses the same "trick" that Mat Hunter describes, where a fuzzy thumbnail immediatly shows up, then the full-resolution thumbnail is rendered a second or two later. Good design seems to get 'plagiarized' a lot, and the best ideas tend to trickle down. However, just as importantly as how good design gets propagated, it seems equally important to remember that a good design doesn't mean it will succeed in the consumer phase, like the Audrey and similar "internet appliances".
[edit] Andrew prasetyo 16:10, 30 January 2007 (PST)
"Adopting Technology"
In spite of its length, I think “Adopting Technology” is a very interesting article. It provides us with many concrete examples throughout history, from cars to iPod. This article shows that design has played important role throughout human history. I often overlook the design of my car, but thinking about it, I realize that the gear-stick, especially in a manual car, is actually designed to fit with our palm and it is also designed so that we can shift the gear without even looking. Another interesting product in the article is the camera. Camera has gone through three design phases, from enthusiasts, to professional, and now to consumers. I am particularly amazed by the fact that the designers of camera have considered the importance of human-machine interaction. The early cameras required the user to have a PhD degree in optics, but, nowadays, almost everybody can take a good picture (the article mentions that even a chimpanzee can do it). Obviously, this is also supported by the advanced technology in optics and digital imaging. I like the way the author presents the article. He provides many real examples, presented with pictures and figures, and quotes some successful professionals in the design industry.
[edit] Onyi Lam 17:33, 30 January 2007 (PST)
"Adpating Technology"
This article is easier to read than the articles assigned in earlier lectures despite of its length. It explores a great deal the interaction between human and machines and illstrates the points through various benchmark design. In the beginning of the article, the author also explains how there are three phrases of adoption of technology including: enthusiasts, professionals and consumers. Dofferent designers team is required for each phrase to design a human-technology design interface. Among the examples given in the article I found it most interesting to read about designing an interface of the car. It was a revolutionary step to go from a horse carriage to an automobile and an excellent interface is thus especially important in this transformation. Because of the excellent design, the car interface hasn't changed much ever since. The minalistic interface of IPOD is also a very forward thinking in designing an interfcae because it was very new to see a seperate electronics product could be so seeminglessly integrated into a computer-based application ("sync" with iTune).
[edit] Richard Chen 20:32, 30 January 2007 (PST)
"Adopting Technology"
This article did a fine job of laying out the types of successful designs that have transformed the way in which we live our lives. I thought that the layout of the article was also nicely designed, as the combination of pictures, diagrams, and explanations caught my attention. Furthermore, I also noticed that there were a lot of examples that centered around the themes that we had talked about in class—for example, the concept of design cycles and the overriding responsibility of the designer to keep the consumer in mind. The author’s case for the iPod is mind-opening in that it goes to show how a device can win over the hearts and minds of an entire population—mostly owing to its design. Most of my friends who own iPods feel that they can get the same music-playing functions of an iPod out of the MP3 players that they had already owned, but the reason that they have been so enamoured with the iPod is the feeling that they have when they use it to play their music. Thus, it seems to me that a good design not only carries with it some novel, practical qualities, but also spiritual qualities as well—qualities that really resonate with the user and make them believe in that product. Lastly, this article really drives home the fact that companies are able to create a market for certain products that would not have existed if the product had not been of a superior design. The corollary to that idea is that oftentimes, good design drives change and innovation.
[edit] Christopher Ling 21:06, 30 January 2007 (PST)
Although this article was fairly long, I thought the author did a good job in describing many aspects of design. I liked how the stages of technology were broken down into 3 phases: enthusiast phase, professional phase, and consumer phase. Each of the phases had different attributes, such as how products in the professional phase had to be reliable and have a reasonable cost while products in the consumer phase had to be easy to use and contain the essential value proposition. It was interesting to see the supporting examples that the author provided next, such as with the development cycle of the automobile and camera. For product developers, I can see the importance of realizing what phase the product is currently in. The designers may have to adopt and edit certain features to make it more fitting to the current phase. Design is important in every aspect, and successfully designed products, such as the iPod, are excellent examples.
[edit] Asmita Karandikar 21:18, 30 January 2007 (PST)
Bill Moggridge’s “Adapting Technology” was an informative reading assignment. The article begins by discussing the three design phases that a product goes through, from its introduction to its availability to consumers (the “enthusiast,” “professional,” and “consumer” phases). I found this interesting because I had never thought about the ways that products are introduced to the public consumer and did not realize that products must go through various levels of design processes. I really enjoyed reading the section about the phone usage behaviors of teenagers and appreciated the humorous tone, since I’m sure many people have had similar thoughts when they were younger. I also liked reading the section discussing how Apple’s computer mouse developed because the computer mouse is something that we take for granted today, so it was interesting to read about the development process and some of the issues that the designers faced. Near the end of the chapter, Moggridge discusses the success of iPod and iTunes. The reading offered some insight into why people, including myself, prefer these products over similar devices – it is because the iPod, iTunes, and iTunes store fit together so well. It makes me realize the importance of creating a product that is easy to use and encompasses all related aspects that are important to the user. This makes the product easier for the user to operate, thus making it more appealing.
[edit] Rey Doctora 21:18, 30 January 2007 (PST)
“Adopting Technology” This article was clear, enjoyable, and easy to read despite its length. The article revealed how various individuals approached product design, such as David Liddle and Rikako Sakai, and provided several examples of the evolution of certain products during their development. I found it interesting how the article states that an inventor does not play a role in all three phases of product design: the enthusiast phase, the professional phase, and the consumer phase. It is claimed that the inventor cannot develop the technology once it enters the professional phase. I would think otherwise. The inventor, in my opinion, would probably know the product best and hence should be a contributing member of the pricing team. Cutting him or her off, I feel, would be a great loss in the development process since the inventor usually has the best insights on what was developed, what material to use, and perhaps the most reliable form of design.
[edit] Shady Guirguis 22:30, 30 January 2007 (PST)
“Adopting technology”
This article, although long, was quite interesting to read. It explains the process of adapting a new technology at the different phases. The enthusiasts phase is where people like a product and utilize it. The second phase is the professional phase, where is it adapted and used by businesses. The last phase is the customer phase, which shows a sign of success as if the product is utilized by customers, then it was a good product. I like the examples given of the cell phone and the ipod. It is hard to imagine in this day and age people over the age of 16 not having a cell phone. It is a big part of our lives, and people are constantly on the move and cell phones are a big part of their social networking. The ipod on the other hand, I never understood why it took off that much. I thought it was simply the sleek look and the big hard drive, but what made it catch on is the click wheel. People really enjoyed the simplicity of the interface and the ipod became probably one of the most sold accessory today.
[edit] Megan Whittey 22:36, 30 January 2007 (PST)
"Adopting technology"
The article was very long but easy to read. I liked how the article gave alot of everyday, technological examples such as cameras, phones, and iPods. It was interesting how long the research took to look into developing new technology or a 'new face' for the kodak cameras. From the pictures though, it looked like it was worth it. I did like how pictures were included so you were able to see the authors and products, and with the kodak switchplate it showed the different stages and improvements it went through. One thing I disagreed with was the response and results from the interviews of the 14 to 24 year olds who didn't like the thought of cell phones. It's funny how popular they are today, especially with that age group. I also found that when the author broke down the production or design phase into three parts, enthusiast, professional, and consumer, it made it alot easier to understand. Overall, I liked the article, and after reading it, didn't mind it's length.
[edit] Tawan Udtamadilok 22:43, 30 January 2007 (PST)
This article was an impressive review of the evolution of several different products that also showcased interviews that allowed designers to flow through the stages they went through in the design. It was fascinating to see the different ways from which designers approach a project to create a finished product that is designed to optimize the relationship between product and user. Some designers named the different stages of development which seemed very telling of their techniques.
The section about Liddle’s 3 stages of adoption was insightful. The section showed the importance of appeasing different types of users thought the design process.
[edit] James ChunJye Tong 00:08, 31 January 2007 (PST)
“Adapting Technology”
I like how this article discussed the developing process of different products and I found it very interesting. Each phase of adoption of creating a new product is very important. To create a new product and make them better require huge amount of effort from the designers, the engineers, and the users. And in the Kodak case, I’m amazed by how the team can work from scratch to make the new idea happen in short amount of time. I think it is interesting in the part about the Canon PhotoStitch Sakai commented that, “In fact, before the usability testing, the engineers had already noticed some of the problems, and they told me what they had known before the usability testing.” It shows that how the design would not be perfect until people other than the designer use the product. And also, the company are often have to release the new product as soon as possible in order to be competitive in the market, even if they have already known that the product is not perfect.
[edit] Michael Lovejoy 01:10, 31 January 2007 (PST)
This lengthy chapter had a pretty good explanation of the design process from enthusiasts to professionals to consumers. I thought this was an interesting perspective, and the author clearly demonstrated the conflicting ideas and goals of the three stages. Normally we only consider the consumer perspective, for which ease of use and price are important. However, the novelty of the new technology is the important part of the enthusiast stage, and trade-offs are important for the professional stage. The descriptions of the development of the car, cell phone, and digital camera were also quite interesting. It’s hard to imagine not understanding the benefits of digital cameras, but times have changed significantly. The part about creating panoramic images was interesting because I remember my brother trying to “stitch” photos together with his Canon camera. While the camera itself helped a little with putting photos together, ultimately Photoshop worked the best. It’s good to know that at least they tried to make a convenient program that really works. I thought the idea behind IDEO’s big trackball for kids was a very innovative solution. I also thought it was interesting how company culture can influence the products that company develops, as seen in Apple vs. Microsoft. Overall, I thought the chapter was interesting and very long.
[edit] Jason Hu 01:24, 31 January 2007 (PST)
The division of the technology adoption process into Enthusiast, Professional, and Consumer phases, seems a sensible approximation of the process of how modern technologies came to be. I would only add that today’s “enthusiasts” include many people in research labs in universities and corporations as well.
There’s another example of Kodak taking advantage of preexisting public perceptions, though it was more of an achievement in marketing than interaction architecture. At one point, they marketed a “disposable digital camera.” Of course, the actual camera was still loaded with film, but the consumer got back prints AND a CD. Kodak knew that people would buy into the idea of an advanced new photo technology, and the CD they got was proof enough. Kodak’s early lead in the digital camera business s a reminder of the importance of “interaction architecture.” Too bad Kodak lost the digital camera market in the long run. They had/have some great film stocks, but that stuff is more and more becoming a rare, specialty product. The idea of interaction architecture is an important one that’s probably very difficult to accomplish. It requires designers who are equal parts inventor, sociologist, and science-fiction writer.
[edit] Patricia Wang 01:50, 31 January 2007 (PST)
"Adopting Technology"
This article did a really good job mapping out the progression through the three phases of design: the enthusiast, the professional, and the consumer phase. It uses the development of commonly used products like cars and cameras to illustrate the transitions in the focus of design, moving from innovation to practicality. By making these transitions, designers adjust to the different types of users and eventually are able to popularize their product’s design and set standards of use. What I found most interesting were the points brought up by Paul Mercer, that the competitive advantage iPod has over its competitors seems enigmatic considering its design’s simplicity. Such a phenomenon demonstrates that the trend of holding usability and functionality of a device higher than its complexity is prevalent among today’s consumers.
[edit] Katherine Tong 02:39, 31 January 2007 (PST)
"Adopting Technology"
What I really enjoyed about this article was the enphasis that just engineering knowledge is not enough to make a product successful."Competitive advantage will accrue if they are behaviorally and aesthetically enjoyable" (249). I liked the idea that you can only go so far with the technology developed, but there comes a point where you really need to focus on the affordances, constraints and mappings of the device. I feel that the article about the Kodak camera did a particularly good job explaining this process, mainly because so many people use the camera now and I can see how and why certain features needed to be improved.
"Once the adoption of technology reaches the consumer phase, the skills of interaction designers and psychologists are much more likely to be essential for a successful outcome" (283)
[edit] Michael Chen 08:24, 31 January 2007 (PST)
"Adopting Technology"
Although the article was long, it wasn't really that difficult a read, and, like a high schooler's papers, used big font, large margins, and page-sized pictures to inflate the page length. Because of the length of the article, I learned something new about Adobe Reader. In this case, I opened up the PDF, and then after grabbing most of the file, closed my laptop to read at another time. When I reopened it up to read, I noticed that I had to connect to the internet to grab the last 10 pages or so, which means that Adobe Reader streams content even while the reader is up. I thought that organization-wise, the choice to segment the chapter by person was a little odd, considering that for each person, only one product was featured. It would have made far more sense to organize the chapter by focusing on the product that was designed, rather than the person doing the designing. By far the best design example was the Kodak camera interface, which is still more or less the standard for digital cameras today. Fancy printers and kitchen computers are something I could care less about, and the iPod has been analysed to death, but the digital camera interface was something still very much everyday but overlooked enough to be fresh when the chapter addressed it.
[edit] Timothy Manglicmot 09:44, 31 January 2007 (PST)
“Adopting Technology”
Despite the lengthiness of the article, this piece was very enjoyable to read. After learning about the phases of adoption to technology (enthusiasts, professions, and consumers) it was fun to read about the different cases of design throughout history. As an iPod owner I especially enjoyed reading how Apple was able to monopolize the mp3 player market with its clever and innovative design. I’ve owned several mp3 players in my lifetime and I can attest to the fact that the iPod not only looks great but is designed for easy navigation and use. I would like to point out, however, that although the iPod had a good design and this undoubtedly contributed to its popularity, the Apple marketing team also did a great job popularizing the product (so design shouldn’t attributed as the main factor for the iPod’s success). One other interesting part of the article was the excerpt about cell phones. To see how much the 14 to 24-year old age group disapproved of cell phones to their popularity was that age group in today’s world is simply astounding. It helps show that market surveys don’t always hold true to how the market will really react to the product. In closing, I really enjoyed reading the article even though it was pretty long.
[edit] Fenelia Kosasih 10:10, 31 January 2007 (PST)
"Adopting Technology"
The article shows how technology advances through three different phases: the enthusiast phase, where the technology is created for those who appreciate it and will exploit it; the professional phase, where the users decide to get practical return of investment use out of the technology; and the consumer phase, where the technology can fit into the user's lifestyle and be practical. The author gave several interesting examples illustrating this progression. One of the example he gave was that of camera. In the enthusiast phase, only the enthusiasts (PhD in optics) are able to operate a camera. But today, the technology has come up with point and shoot camera for the dummies, meaning that anyone will be able to take a good photograph without any need of photography expertise. The photography industry has advanced to the level of being able to satisfy both the professionals as well as the consumers.
[edit] Johannesleholm 10:17, 31 January 2007 (PST)
I really liked thinking about design in the enthusiast, business, and consumer cycle. Designing for each requires different features because the user base and skill set that is to use the product vary. Being a brewing enthusiast, for example, I enjoy the complexity and variations in the microbrewing process. Consumers, on the other hand, simply want a can or bottle filled with brew to be immediately consumed. For consumers, it's all about the lowest common denominator that will maximizes revenue. While this can take away some of the fun that enthusiasts are drawn to, it raises the capital to mass produce quality products that work effectively. As the article stated, the enthusiast usually makes cool applications of technology, but they usually are not reliable enough for the mass market (my microbrew is the exception). I particularly was interested in learning about the creation of the Kodak digital photo interface design. My grandma can use digital cameras and she is way old. By designing the interface that has influenced subsequent digital cameras and video recorders, Kodak has enabled virtually anyone to take pictures that can immediately be published on a computer. Kodak's design is really responsible for the success of online social networking, which in turn is responsible for about 88% of my friends.
[edit] Connie Ko 11:16, 31 January 2007 (PST)
"Adopting Technology"
It was an enjoyable read. I liked how they described the different phases of the product (enthusiast, professional, and consumer). I never took the time to think of design development in that way but it is really true. Particularly, I have a friend that definitely fits under the enthusiast category, trading easy use for more functionality. And yes, my friend sometimes tends to be "proud of your ability to manage all of the complexities and difficulties". I also really liked the section about iPod and why it is so successful because of the effort they put into integration of their products. They are continuously working on it, now with their newest product the iPhone.
[edit] Rabia Siddiqi 11:27, 31 January 2007 (PST)
Adopting Technology
This article was long but the reading went by quickly because it was very well-written. I liked the discussion of the three phases of design in which the focus shifts from the enthusiast to the professional to the consumer. Enthusiast are interested in the complexities of new products and enjoy solving the puzzles the present. For professionals, the most important thing is the end product. Even if it is a little difficult to use, they are willing to use it if it produces good results. Finally, consumers want their purchases to efficient and easy to use. It was interesting to read about the innovative designers presented by the article and find out what led them to come up with their designs. After reading the section about the iPod's popularity, I wondered what is so special about the iPod's design that no other company has been able to compete. The best part about this article is that it combined quotes, commentary, and images in a way that made reading very enjoyable.
[edit] Ryan Jue 12:52, 31 January 2007 (PST)
"Adopting Technology"
While at first glance it seemed like I was going to read a novel, the article was actually a very interesting read. I enjoyed all of the examples of adopting new technologies that a lot of us just take for granted. When talking about the enthusiast, professional and consumer, I thought the article could have also referred more towards Moore's Chasm which is talked about in another IEOR class, the 190 series. Moore's Chasm refers to the difference between the enthusiast and the professional and consumer markets. The chasm is the gap that a producer of the technology has to cross to overcome being a niche product and going into the mainstream consumer base. Using some of the examples in the article, the color printer in the start was just for digital photo enthusiasts and for the common person it was just an extra. However, it was an example of something that did indeed cross the chasm and move into the consumer market. Similarly, the article talked about the Apple iPod where it too could have been stuck with just the music enthusiast market, but has successfully crossed the chasm as well.
[edit] HAK-SEUNG KIM 13:34, 31 January 2007 (PST)
“Adapting Technology”
This article presents about the relationships between technology and design. Can they be separated? It seems that we cannot think the design without a current technology because there are always demands in technology. Also, with a good design, technology can be more valuable because more people want to use technology by seeing its design. Also, with a good design itself, people can easily know how to use the product even though the technology is so complicated. Thus, we can say, the design must adapt the technology. Also, the technology needs to interact with the design. People whoever want to get a big market share with their product, one must know and understand how important the interaction between technology and design is.
[edit] Christine Shih 13:55, 31 January 2007 (PST)
"Adapting Technology"
This article talks about the design process of different products like the Photostich software, ipod... etc and background of leading industrial designers like david kelly (creator of ideo), paul mercer(ceo of pixo)..etc. david liddle pointed out that new technology goes through 3 development phases:enthusiast, professional, and consumer phase. In the enthusiast phase, people who love technology come up with all these different ideas which are not always practical, not only you get to the professional phase are practical issues such as cost and prices come into play. They start to focus on making this new technology more useful/pratical. When the technology becomes cheap enough for everyday people to buy, it reaches the consumer phase.Now the technology needs to have automatic controls-it has to be easy to use and user friendly for people who don't have a technical background or don't want to read a manual. I thought it was interesting to read about the changes made and concerns addressed when designers go through the process of improving products such as photostich. Design seems to play a big role in the success of a new product.
[edit] Raymond Kim 13:58, 31 January 2007 (PST)
"Adopting Technology"
I found the article quite interesting, and its 3 step framework is absolutely true with technology products. Using cars and cameras as examples, David Liddle shows us historically how these devices have been able to successful transition forward through the three steps. Mat Hunter's section was also an ejoyable read. I especially liked the line said by George Eastman: “You press the button; we do the rest.” It's also intriguing to see how successful designs can make or break a company's operations such as KODAK and Apple. With the past success of Apple's iPod, it will be interesting to see whether their sleek, clean designs will become the industry standard.
[edit] Yang Hung 14:02, 31 January 2007 (PST)
Adopting Technology
Despite the long read, I really enjoyed the article's description of the 3 different design phases (enthusiast, rofessional, and consumer). This sort of framework is almost akin to Moore's technology adoption lifecycle, where each successive group come in to accept a new technology. The example about teenager's attitudes toward the cell phone in 1994 was very insighgtful. This example brings about the counter argument that maybe sometimes it is up to the visionary designer as opposed to the consumer to come up with a novel technology, because the customer might not always know what he or she really wants. The Apple Newton is a good example of this. Although the Newton itself flopped, it ushered in a new industry in portable computing and led to the rise of palmpilots and subsequent PDAs.
[edit] Karena 14:11, 31 January 2007 (PST)
“Adopting Technology” This article shows me many interesting examples such as Kodak and iPod. However, the concept that interests me the most is that how technology adaption is divided into three different phases: the enthusiast phase, the professional phase, and the consumer phase. It recalled one of my interesting memories. My Uncle is a computer expert and he can use computer to improve his work efficiency. On the other hand, my Aunt can only use computer to perform simple task such as go online and messenger. Obviously, my Unlce is a professional and my Aunt is a consumer according to Bill Moggridge’s concept. One day, my Uncle argued with my Aunt because he thought it was necessary for him to get a new computer at home and my Aunt said the current computer is good enough. After the argument, my Uncle bought a new computer but my Aunt insisted to use the old computer only. We can see that professional and consumer have different perspectives when they use the same product.
[edit] Anar Joshi 14:18, 31 January 2007 (PST)
The “Adapting Technology” article looked at the contributions of various people to designing new technologies. One of the profiles focused on David Liddle, the project leader for the design of the Xerox Star, who broke down the adoption into three stages. The first stage is the enthusiasts, professionals, then finally the consumer market. Liddle said that inventors are good at designing for enthusiasts, but aren’t as good when they have to design for professionals. He believes that this is because the product has to be designed for practical purposes and must be both useful and usable. Another profile focused on Rikako Sakai whose master’s thesis focused on the idea of “wearables”, where chairs and tables wear clothes to stimulate interpersonal communication. I thought that this was an interesting idea because it makes people interact with space in a different way. The article ended with a discussion about the importance to design based on human interaction which is epitomized by the design of the iPod.
[edit] Shwan Kazzaz 14:42, 31 January 2007 (PST)
The author delivered a very in-depth analysis about the adoption of a product and the phases it usually goes through. The first is the enthusiast phase, and I thought it was very interesting that the enthusiast phase often dictates the fate of the product and the further design cycles it is put through. The fact that the enthusiasts often enjoy making sense of a product before it has been finely polished rang true to me as I consider myself an enthusiast. The enthusiast finds uses for the product that can lead to its professional development and uses. And finally, the consumer adopts the product asking how it can fit into his or her life. I also though the framework for consumer digital photography: 1. readiness to capture, 2. information at capture, 3. creative control, 4. organization, 5. ways to display. I find this very true as organization of my photographs (I am a photographer) can be a daunting task. The idea of the photostitch technology is a very interesting one, as I have yet to find a good automatic software that is easy to use. It can be a complicated task to stitch photos and have a good UI is very important. I think that some of the ideas for printers are not very practical, as I am constantly trying to find space for my printer, and most of these don't actually save space. I really agree with the point that no one enjoys the software on their cellphone, however, I am excited about what's available with the iPhone.
[edit] Minhaaj Khan 15:25, 31 January 2007 (PST)
This chapter was a lengthy read but fortunately it wasn't dense, especially on a day we have an assignment due as well. I found the article interesting, especially the design process of products and their lifecycles. I also liked how the chapter covered products we’ve all gotten so used to using and how they came to be where they are today (e.g. cars, digital camera/photography, iPods, etc.). It was also interesting to learn about the enthusiast, professional, and consumer phases of the adaptation of a product and how these phases worked. This chapter was just another example of the importance of good design during the design process in order for a product to be successful; primarily in the consumer phase.
[edit] Siu Pan Lam 15:25, 31 January 2007 (PST)
“Adopting Technology”
This chapter provides an interesting view on technology adoption by dividing it into three phases: enthusiast, professional, and consumer, and explaining the successes and failures of some inventions including the VCR, cars, and digital cameras. As the chapter depicted, inventors have control over the first phase of a technology – enthusiast phase, where the “enthusiasts” adopt the technology and perceive the technology as an aesthetic property. However, in the latter stages of a technology, it is entirely up to the market to determine the usefulness and usability of the product, as well as finding a balance between price and value. I find this analysis reasonable and true because I agree that the control of an inventor over the success of a new product is very limited. For example, an inventor might come up with a method to store an unlimited amount of files in a computer hard drive, but it is entirely up to the consumers to decide whether or not the product will be utilized, and whether or not the product will be affordable and accessible based on market supply and demand. The chapter addresses a good example of this issue by providing a brief analysis on the invention of VCR, which did not receive great feedback when it was first released due to its bad interaction design. I also find it enjoyable to read about the invention of the first of this new generation of digital cameras by Kodak using the idea of “user experience prototype.” The key solution comes down to this: the design will have a competitive edge if it is both “behaviorally and aesthetically enjoyable.”
[edit] Sumeet Patel 15:36, 31 January 2007 (PST)
“Adopting Technology”
I thought this was an interesting article, it was a bit long and some of the full page pictures were unnecessary. They broke down the perception of design into the enthusiast, the professional, and the consumer. Each of these phases had a different view point and a different need for design. We have studied a lot of consumer design issues recently but it was nice to see the distinction with the groups. The section on the iPod at the end was interesting to see how they designed it and who was behind making such a popular device. The section on digital camera’s was also interesting because I never knew of the different functions of some of the camera’s on the market. I guess this distinguishes me from being an enthusiast and just a consumer.
[edit] Michael Toulouse 15:45, 31 January 2007 (PST)
“Adopting Technology”
Liddle's organization of adoption into Hobby,Professional, Consumer looked familiar. The professional phase was new to me, though. The context in which I always heard about adoption generally involved some new electronics, like the newest graphics card, which were bought in the first generation by the crazy enthusiasts with too much disposable income, and then by consumers at a more reasonable price after bugs were ironed out. Now that I look at it, there were probably professionals who adopted the technology in order to better use design programs, for example. The concept of a user experience prototype introduced in the next section was also interesting. For a prototype, it makes sense to only put effort into building what you want adjusted by design. Davice Kelley's insights on the design process itself were good, though some seemed familiar from the video watched earlier. And, of course, the massively successful, aesthetically pleasing iPod had its spot, and what it did right was explained.
[edit] Marshall Anderson 15:51, 31 January 2007 (PST)
I enjoyed reading this article because the interview format gave straight information and opinion from several experts in interface design. I am in total agreement with Davis Liddle's three phases to product adoption. It is interesting to wonder why some products move through the three phases so fast while others take a long time or even get stuck in a phase. Xerox's efforts to simplify diagnostics and maintenance of their printers and copies is a really cool interface idea that would sell me over if I was in the market. In high school I once worked in a copy machine repair shop where the technicians would go out in the field to do some of the simplest tasks including changing toner!
[edit] Umber Masood 15:53, 31 January 2007 (PST)
I liked reading this chapter. Moggridge has a nice writing style and it is easy to understand what he is saying. I thought it was interesting that there are three phases for a new technology: the enthusiast phase, the professional phase, and the consumer phase. I agree that this is the case. It usually takes a while for a new technology to become mainstream. The people who first use the technology are the ones who are very interested in it. Then, slowly, the technology is made on a wider scale for consumers. For example, the computer was first used by enthusiasts. Soon professionals began to see uses for the computer in their work, so they also started using it. Next the computer was marketed to consumers, so that they could use them in their homes. Today, computers are used by everyone. I remember seeing the video about IDEO during class, yet I did not know that IDEO also designed the first digital camera. I thought the design process for the digital camera was interesting. Especially when making a product that has never been made before, like Kodak did with their first digital camera, it seems like a lot of thought is needed to make the product and design it in such a way so that it can be used with ease. This reading gave a lot of insight into the design process. I also liked reading the interviews.
[edit] YeeWan Cheung 15:56, 31 January 2007 (PST)
The article caught my attention by this sentence: “it was too complicated to use”. It’s true that a lot of beautiful designs are quite discouraged due to their complexity. One of the interviews introduces the idea of three phases of adoption, including enthusiast, professional, and consumer phase. The enthusiast is looking for the product’s capabilities, so they are the easiest to be satisfied. Then the business user is looking for productivity, and this requires a team of technicians to make the design not only beautiful, but also becomes reliable, useful, usable, and affordable. Finally, the consumer phase builds up on the previous two phase, on top of them, it also requires the product to be easy to use, enjoyable, and find a right balance between price and performance. I think it’s very important for a product designer to know these phases because it let him/her know what to focus on during the product development progress. In another interview, David Kelley talks about the idea of information appliance. I think this idea of integrating technology into everyday lives of people is great. However, I disagree with the author who said computer is designed for a specific purpose and used only in that context because now-a-day computer can do so much more with the aid of internet. It can work as a phone, camera, cook book, and many more.
[edit] Shilpi Verma 15:57, 31 January 2007 (PST)
Adopting Technology: This article first starts out by describing that technology is adapted in three phases: the enthusiast phase, the professional phase, and the consumer phase. It was really interesting to read about the different examples of design throughout the past. I thought David Liddle’s cases of the car and the camera to explain the three phases and how these phases help to explain how interaction design has developed. I was really interested in the part where the author talks about the Ipod and Apple. After having owned an mp3 player and now owning an Ipod, I was really amazed to read about the thought that went into designing it and who was behind making such a well-liked and trendy device. This article was another example of how design plays an important part in the success of a product, while also depicting how the three different phases come into play, especially the consumer phase.
[edit] Aubuchon 15:58, 31 January 2007 (PST)
“Adopting Technology” article
This article covers some important classifications in design. It suggests that factors in design necessarily appeal more to one type of person than other. Enthusiasts, professionals, and consumers are three categories of people that all may have a different take on the same product. When a product is still fairly new for instance, it may still be too complex for an average user to operate, and so that product will only circulate among enthusiasts. It was also interesting for this article to bring up the importance of perception in designing a product. For instance, the packaging of a toy may have as much importance in appealing to a child consumer, than does particular design features of the toy itself. Another interesting part was the discussion of adopting technology to user input devices. The article mentions this as one of its first major applications. Its interesting to see that while both a computer mouse and a children interactive toy can both rely on the movement of a ball to scroll some type of cursor, this technology must be carefully adapted to the particular user. For example, an adult can use a mouse easily, but a child needs s different design to use larger muscles groups to exert control.
[edit] Luna Dai 15:59, 31 January 2007 (PST)
"Adopting Technology"
This article presents accomplished people in different and related industries and describes their insights and experiences in the interaction design process. I especially liked the section about Rikako Sakai's involvement in Canon's Photostitch software. Her use of observations from usability testing sessions to make improvements to the user interface provides a clear example of how the designer may transition from observation to application. The long discussion that ensued from Rikako's suggestion about icons and adding text labels also gives some idea as to the difficulties when a group of people from different professional backgrounds work together. The inclusion of psychologists and behavioral specialists on these design projects was a new concept to me. In the design of the Kodak digital camera interface, I liked how they maneuvered around the low processing power available and provided users with the perception of speed. Their trick of moving the thumbnails of the images very quickly and then moving the full resolution image in later, giving the user the feeling of using a high technology and powerful device. Although nowadays, computers have much more processing power than the average user requires, this type of design consideration is still very relevant.
[edit] Monica Tanza 16:00, 31 January 2007 (PST)
"Adopting Technologies"
This article interviews key figures that took part in a successful design, ranging from cars to ipods. I found this article to be very insight and included a lot of good advice and information. I thought it was interesting how the part about Kodak mentioned not only the importance of the design process, but the importance of bridging that gap with the engineers that will build it and producing a prototype to successfully communicate their ideas. The section about the Cannon cameras was also very interesting. Through reading this, I realized a design flaw. I have a Cannon camera and have used the stitch program on my computer. However, I was not aware that there was a useful program built into my camera. I feel Cannon should have made this more aware, especially if you are using the computer program. This loops back to the idea of simplicity and visibility in design and finding the appropriate balance.
[edit] Penny Yuan 16:01, 31 January 2007 (PST)
"Adopting Technology"
I thoroughly enjoyed reading the progression of technology adaptation through three different phases: enthusiast, professional and consumer. This theme repeats itself throughout the entire article in almost each one of the examples. One example I had in mind was the 'Digital photography' section. Liddle points out that the progression of the camera has moved from the "enthusiast" phase in the 50s, where one would almost need a PhD to operate them, to today's "idiot camera", or point-and-shoot digital cameras. He also details the professional side of the business, such as the professional photographers who have the equipment to control all aspects of the shot, and also the consumer side, which includes numerous processing facilities. I also enjoyed the brainstorm for the frameworks of opportunities for consumer digital photography.
[edit] Hong How Quek 16:04, 31 January 2007 (PST)
"Adopting Technology"
Even though the article was reasonably lengthy, I found it to be an enjoyable read because the three-step framework proposed made a lot of sense to me and gave me a deeper insight into the three-step product development process (enthusiast, professional and consumer). The examples given were really interesting and made it easy for me to relate to the concept. I’ve also seen the development of these products in my lifetime so it was really easy for me to relate to the article—for example, why IPOD continues to dominate the industry today not just because of its music playing capabilities but also the feeling and attitude it gives to the users.
[edit] Justin Hsu 16:05, 31 January 2007 (PST)
Adopting Technology
The article “Adopting Technology” was indeed an interesting read. The author’s Three Phases of Adoption was quite original and I agree for the most part that it can be applied to most products today. I completely agree with his sentiments regarding the enthusiast stage. Many of today’s popular mainstream products have gotten their start with a small group of enthusiastic users. It is through this dedicated “cult following” that the product idea eventually gains the attention of a more widespread audience. It is important for the product to have this support because the enthusiast is fascinated simply by the technology and is willing to look over the things a typical consumer would look for (e.g. practicality, price, reliability, etc.) However, I do not necessary agree that a product needs to be considered useful for business applications before it becomes practical for home consumers. Since many products are designed for consumers not necessarily within the business realm, I think it really depends on the industry.
[edit] Karey Park 16:15, 31 January 2007 (PST)
"Adopting Technology" is a realistic and adventurous insight into the process of how a new technology eventually gets adopted. The three stages of development - the enthusiast, professional, and consumer phases - are explored through the lens of many (five, to be exact) people, which was something that I appreciated. The different perspectives, each with their own twist, seemed a little bit excessive, and their views could have been accurately conveyed through less than eighty-two pages, I thought. Nevertheless, they remained a joy to read, surprisingly, and I got an overall impression that pursuing excellence in designs is what is really going to change lives and lifestyles of people today.
[edit] Nicolas Suryono 16:21, 31 January 2007 (PST)
Adopting Technology
I think this article is the most interesting article in this class so far. I really enjoyed the various design example that the author provide us with. I particularly like the iPod and digital camera example because I am an avid user for both devices. When I first bought my iPod, I never really know what makes them so special beside their design. Now, I understand why most people choose iPod other than other mp3 players on the market after reading the articles. I was also impressed with what the manufacturer and designer do to make their product more user friendly and accessible to their customer.
[edit] Ryan Panchadsaram 16:31, 31 January 2007 (PST)
Adopting Technology
Even though that was an extremely long article, the point was made: design is essential for a successful product no matter what field you are in. The importance of understanding the user can create a valuable product that outshines the competition in the industry. It was interesting to see on paper how when new technologies are created they are passed from enthusiasts to professionals to consumers. This matches the product life cycle that we learn in marketing classes. It points out to the designers who are your users at what instance in time. I think the article closed well with David Kelley from IDEO. He really brings design full circle. It is not just about creating products like cameras, MP3 players or software, in the bigger picture it is about creating environments that people can achieve their full potential in. I love his example of the hospital, which is an environment which is currently designed poorly and causes patients stress. With advice and help from his firm, these hospitals are transforming their customer’s experiences into less frightening and relaxing ones.
[edit] Royapakzad 16:41, 31 January 2007 (PST)
"Adopting Technology"
This article, although long, was very interesting, because it elaborated on the different phases of adopting technology which are: 1) enthusiast, 2) professional, 3) consumer. It also discussed the different skills and processes required for each phase. It was very intriguing to notice that the development of a product is in fact more complicated and precise than what it appears to be. In particular, it was interesting to know how for instance Mat Hunter had to struggle with the design of his camera, simply because he was unaware of the technology and possibilities available. Overall, I think the article is inspiring to young innovators and it can expand the vision of those who have brilliant ideas for designing products but just don’t know where to start.
[edit] Luciana Cook 16:49, 31 January 2007 (PST)
"Adopting Technology"
I thought this article was interesting and it did a good job giving different points of views. For example, the article describes all the things a creator thinks about when designing a product. He thinks about the consumer, the professional…anything and anyone that might be affected by the product or that might use the product.
[edit] Urvashi 21:59, 1 February 2007 (PST)
The author outlines how the advent of each technology passes through three phases, enthusiast, professional and consumer. And how each requires different skills and processes There is a different set of demands for each process that must be met in each stage. I also like the way the camera is used to explain this process of evolution. Earlier camera shopping meant looking at big bulky, black cameras that would take amazing pictures only if you mastered the several controls. I never felt enticed to take pictures with them. Nowadays however, the market is awash with super slim point-and shoots that satisfy exactly what a consumer would want. They are slim, stylish and very easy to use. Nowadays designers are focusing on products as well as services to provide a complete easy-to-use package for the consumer which is what Apple did. By introducing the iPod, not only can consumers have their music library in their pocket but they can also purchase individual tracks from Apple’s online music store conveniently. The technological advances in the last few years have been immense, and its time for companies to move on the next stage which is improving the design of their products.
