My first goal was to make sure the prototype was a complete click-thru of  all the designed pages. Now, this doesn’t mean I made just the main navigation click-able, but I also linked up any cross link opportunities too. Once I verified that all of the pages were linked together and could be traversed, it was time to move on to the next layer of interactivity.

Developing the various states for each page was next. Since I was using Axure, this meant I broke out the Dynamic Panel and used it anywhere particular components of a page changed given the right conditions. This was the part that took the longest, as I had to work out all the various iterations of the same controls.  I didn’t worry too much about the specific conditions needed for the various states, as keeping track of all the logic in my head was distracting. At this stage in the game, it was  important that I got all the finer details of the interactions designed out.

Now that all of the pages were linked up, and the states created, I got started with the really intensive stuff. Getting the detailed interactive logic done was the final layer to my process. The first bits of logic I tackled were those that effected the whole prototype. A prime example of this was the logged in/logged out states, which requires multiple layers of logic to ensure that it properly affected the whole prototype. Once these general logic cases were covered, I tackled the individual cases present in each page and state. These prototypes were of decent size, so I kept a checklist handy to ensure I didn’t miss anything.

Thinking back, even my pager from high school had the ability to customize its vibration. Granted, the pager only had one function so it didn’t need do any logic to determine which vibration sequence to use, but still the ability was there. With an advanced device like the iPhone, it should be easier than pie to put some logic around what sequence the vibration uses based on what context is being called. This capability has to present already, as Apps have the ability to use the vibration of the phone in a variety of ways. Apple, if you’re listening (which I know you’re not) this would be nice to see in 4.x version of the iPhone OS.

What are some ways this type of contextual interaction could help you?

The Philosophy of Function

After looking over chapter seven in Nicomachean Ethics book one, I can’t see how one can relate the final cause to Aristotle’s function argument. The final cause opens the door to giving things in nature ambition, or to some extent desire. It implies that something is drawing an acorn nut into growing into a fully grown tree. There are a lot of unseen forces at work here, to pull a nut into a tree from some place unseen. I see the function argument as something different though, it gives a nut meaning or a man meaning. In the coming paragraphs I will show that there is a way to apply the function argument to nature, how you can apply the function argument to man, and the differences between the final cause and the function argument. These paragraphs will show how the function argument can be separated by the final cause and therefore be free of its scientific objections.

For us to be able to see how nature’s creatures and nature itself has a function we will need to examine various creatures, plants, and aspects of nature that plays a certain function to the world around it. There are many insects around the world that play a key role in their environment. They help protect various planets and help clean their environment around them. Coleptera.org is an organization devoted to the study of everything there is to know about beetles. In there overall description of what beetles are they give examples of what roles they play in their environment. There are a class of beetles that have the function of pollinating flowers and trees. Without this function many flowers would not be here today. Another class of function of a different class of beetles is to clean up the waste of other animals. The dung beetles feed on and reproduce in the dung of plant eating animals. By doing this function they get rid of millions of tons of dung in a year. If the dung beetles didn’t do its function, our forests would have been overrun and smothered with the dung of herbivores. We owe a lot to the function of the dung beetle, and many other beetle species that are out there.

Plants have many different functions depending on what they grow and where they grow. The Rice Unix Facility has a side site that discusses the Staghorn Cacti. The Staghorn has a protective function in its nectar that keeps it safe from insects. This nectar attracts other insects that will attack, remove, prey upon, or parasitize herbivores that would eat the cactus. The function of creating the nectar protects the all Staghorn Cacti from attack. This is a function just like out own eyes, ears, and hands. Since it is acceptable the since the eyes, ears, and hands have functions then so must we. Then it must be acceptable that since a part of the Cacti has the function of creating the nectar then so must the Staghorn Cacti have a function overall.

Finally there are aspects of nature that’s function keeps our world going basically. The North Atlantic Current, or the Gulf Stream, contributes to the stability to much of our world’s weather. What the Gulf Stream does basically according to the history of the Gulf Stream is bring warm water and air from the Gulf of Mexico all the way up to the British Isles. This brings warm weather to the eastern part of Canada and the western part of Europe. Theoretically if the Gulf Stream did not do this then this regions would just be extension of the Ice cap at the North Pole. If the Gulf Stream did not perform this function naturally then all the people that live in these regions would be out of a home. There are many functions apparent in nature if you just take the time to look for them. They are automatic in some cases in others; it requires certain creatures to maintain the balance.

Aristotle claims that the function of man is to be rationional; this is what makes a man good. The accepted way a proving this by showing that our parts have a function so we must have one since our parts do. The argument that seems weak states that since a carpenter or tanner has a defined function so must the man that does the carpentry or tanning. There is no dispute that carpentry and tanning have a function that is their own, but does that mean since someone is doing that function they have a function themselves. I happen to believe that it does for two reasons. The first is easy enough to state and explain. Aristotle says that the function of man is to be rationional, well the activity of carpentry and tanning requires a certain amount of rational thought doesn’t it? When a carpenter goes to plan out a new chair style or chest style is must first sit down and rationally think out how it will look and be built. The design does not just come to him by accident or happenstance. The advance and working of carpentry and tanning require a person that possesses rationional thought to practice. So from my point of view you cannot have one without the other.

Some could say that the act of carpentry or tannery can be separated from the carpenter or tanner. I don’t believe that this is possible, for if you ask any man who has spent his life doing something he will tell you that what he does is as much a part of him as the air he breaths. Aristotle states that to live a life of rationality means living a life of happiness. Well, another great man, Ben Franklin, once said “It is the working man who is the happy man. It is the idle man who is the miserable man.”(www.brainyqoutes.com) I don’t see how one can say that a man who does carpentry or tannery is not a working man. By using this quote as a basis of an argument, for a man to be happy he must work. To work he must do a craft. Since rational thought is happiness, then working is rational thought played out. The function of carpentry and tannery is then based upon the function of the man, not the other way around.

There are some distinct difference between the final cause and the function argument that you can use the separately. The final cause states that there is some end the drive all action. The action of kicking the table is to get to the end which is kicking the table. It requires to some extent a desire or ambition to get to a certain end. This can easily be seen in the actions of humans and even in some animals. It gets fishy when it is applied to nature. Saying that there is a desire for the grass to grow, that it wishes to grow into a fully grown stalk, can open the door to a lot of superstition. Thought like these could have been the reason why the Native American Indians worshipped nature’s spirits. Many other cultures can see the same idea in their religion or faith.

Function has a definition that is different than a cause though. A function helps or creates an end, but is not depended on the end. I can create robot with a hammer arm, with the clear function of hammering an object. The end object does not matter to the robot because its only has the function of hammering. A river, given enough time, can create a new grand canyon with the current of its waters. The end of the river is not to do this, but its function makes it so. I see a function as a reason why something does something, not every function needs an end for it to happen. A function does not desire or have ambition to do its duty it just does it, because of this you can see the line the separates the final cause and the function argument.

I started this paper with the desire to make a line that would separate Aristotle’s function argument and his final cause. I looked at nature and it inabilities to see what there function is in the overall picture. I looked at the working man and saw how his work is what defines him and vice versa. Finally I looked at my idea of what a cause and a function is and how they can be seen as separate things. I can see how the scientifically community can throughout the final cause, to a certain extent. Yet, I personally can see a difference between Aristotle’s arguments and with the paper I hope you can too.

Work Cited

1. Book: “Complete Works of Aristotle” Edited: Jonathan Barnes. Princeton University Press, 1995.
2. Website: Coleoptera.org, Article: What is a beetle?
3. Website: Brainy Quotes, Benjamin Franklin Quotes.
4. Website: A Natural History of Extrafloral Nectar-Collecting Ants in the Sonoran Desert Rice University. < http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~bws/efns.html >

Imaginative Creation: Interactive Dualism in the works.

What if there were two worlds? One of them being physical, the other non-physical, with our minds being that which is the non-physical and our brain being that which is physical. This is the common view of the general public, known as dualism. One accepted throughout history due to many different reasons. In the philosophical world this view is not as accepted, in some cases it is actually looked down upon. It is my belief that dualism should get more credit than this. Throughout this paper I will be talking about the subclass of dualism known as interactive dualism. Using real world examples I will show how interactive dualism is all around us. I will begin by giving a brief description of interactive dualism, with arguments for and argument against. Following this I will use the human being ability to use their imagination to create art and works of literary fiction is interactive dualism in the works. Interactive dualism is all around us, we just need to open our eyes to be able to see it.

To begin with, I think a brief description of interactive dualism is needed to make this paper clearer. Dualism as a whole is a field of the philosophy of the mind. It deals with explaining mental phenomena and how our minds work. Interactive dualism core is very simple; there exists a physical and non-physical which is able to interact with each other. The physical is about directly affecting the non-physical, and the non-physical is able to directly affect the physical. An example of this is given by slamming your physical fist into a wall; your physical brain goes “ouch”. Your non-physical mind says “punch the wall”, and your physical fist slams into a wall. The pain felt in your hand which fires the nerves that travel all the way up to your brain is the physical part. When you yell out “ouch” that is the non-physical pain that occurs in your mind. In the end we can see how each can equally affect the other, making it a full circle.

The website Answers.com gives a very through explanation of dualism giving both arguments for and against. The following will be brief paraphrasing from those arguments. One of the best arguments is one using the traditional Christian take on the soul. Our non-physical mind can be seen as our immortal soul. One such soul has no tangible body or any physical properties what so ever. This soul of ours is able to live on after our physical body has died and turned to dust. After your physical body is gone, then a whole new realm of non-physicalism is introduced with the concept of heaven, hell, or some other place. Since the majority of the world’s populace has some kind of faith in an all powerful being, dualism must have some truth behind it. This defensive of interactive dualism relies on having a belief in some sort of afterlife, soul, and god, which you may not have. However, since on general the belief exists then there is some underlying truth to the whole matter.

One of the arguments against interactive dualism is the fact that there is no one place where you can say that the interaction takes place. If you slam your fist into a wall, what is the exact place where the pain goes from physical to non-physical? If you come to the conclusion that the pain resides in the brain, then what need is there of pain existing in the mind? Then the next step is to say the pain doesn’t exist anywhere in the brain, just the event that causes pain. This bring up a problem of the causation of pain exists in the brain, but the effect of pain happens somewhere else, which just so happens to be nowhere. This creates a bit of a problem since a dualist cannot pinpoint where pain becomes pain and where its position is. This argument is flawed because it is hard to pin point when anything becomes or meets anything. What is the exact point when I am in the hall compared to when I am in the room? It is a gray area that, which doesn’t hold much water. These are the arguments for and against interactive dualism, both have there strong points and their weakness, depending on your personal views.

There are many phenomena that exist in the real world that would support interactive dualism; I have narrowed it down to three which seem to work out the best. All three rely on our ability to use our imagination to create many different forms of art and literary fiction. The signs of interactive dualism in art have been around for millennia; starting with the oldest cave drawing found in France to the abstract work we see today. The cave drawings in France are believed to have been forms of primitive magic. By drawing the figures of the creatures that early humans hunted they thought they could control them and make it easier to kill. The drawing themselves fit the role of being non-physical in their nature. They control the souls and action of wild beasts in some abstract, non-spatial, to do the bidding of the given drawer. But, where did the idea of the drawing come from, better yet the idea of animal controlling magic? Nothing like this is found in nature anywhere, you won’t accidentally find random drawings on some cave that just so happens to control a local herd. Magic in it self is the idea of non-physical “things” being able to directly affect the physical. Now, the definition of magic does not depend of dualism, for the idea of magic is just a part of the big dualist picture. Dualism can survive even though we have now real example of magic. Again it comes around to how these two non-physical ideas, a herd controlling drawing and magic, come to be a part of our physical world. Some very basic human being with limited intelligence had to have access to a separate area where these things could exist and be able to apply them to the real world. Now, it is no question that herd controlling drawings and magic don’t really exist in the normal world, the idea of them does. Magic is an idea apparent throughout history from the time of Jesus to modern day where you can find a whole section about it at your local Borders. The idea of magic is what is ultimately important, not the actual real work practice of it. The idea behind herd controlling drawings has changed, but at its core has stayed the same. Examples of this are the statues and altars that are found in the ancient world that were devoted to gods and natural spirits. As with some many things, it is not the actual events of the supernatural brought on by ancient art work, it is the idea that has survived. This idea must exist in some non-physical place that no physical being or item has access to without a mind. For it is the mind that allows our physical being interact with the non-physical and vice-versa.

Above was an example where ancient art work itself supposedly had non-physical properties. Now, I will move on to recent historical artwork to modern artwork. Where the idea of artwork is no longer how it will affect the world, but how it represents the world. So the question becomes how does the non-physical influence the artist in their work? There are many pieces out there where the artist was so skilled that the work seems to be a piece of time that was placed on what ever medium is used. Here is where the non-physical comes into play. Whatever the medium is that is used, it is meant to represent some event in the physical world. The event can be a place or person which can be in many different circumstances. Now, physically this event can only happen once, for a very temporary time. Once this event has past, the artwork then represents something non-physical which no longer exists. Also, no matter how good the artist is the work will never be an exact duplicate on the event it is supposed to depict. In the end, the art is physical; it is made up of wood, paper, clay, or some other medium. However, the art does not depict something physical, it depict a non-physical idea that someone by looking at it can place themselves in the event in their minds. Here we have a physical piece of artwork, causing a non-physical event in the mind that takes the mind to a non-physical event. This will work for any piece of artwork that resembles an event that has either happened or will happen.

One other form of artwork exists that causes a non-physical event in a persons mind. These are abstract works where the art on the medium is supposed to depict some intangible idea or thing. Most abstract artwork is just a huge mixing of different colors or materials that don’t seem to have any order to them at all. This mixing is supposed to stir some thought, or belief, in the viewers mind and create an image that is personal to only them. This personal image, which is created in their non-physical mind, will be unique for that person. No other viewer will have the same exact image in their minds. Again we have a mass of seemingly random material creating a unique non-physical image in a persons mind. It works the other way with the artist as well; they have their own unique image in their head which they then translate into the mass of random material. In both cases, different types of artwork have a circle of causation going from the physical to the non-physical. Some of the events caused by the given artwork cannot be described by only physical means, especially with the unique images caused by abstract art. The abstract art examples are special due to the idea and inherit beliefs that are put in the artwork. Each one would be different, for each viewer the artwork would be seen differently. This different view is influenced by personal beliefs, like and dislikes, and possible physiological difference, i.e. color blindness.

The second case where a human’s imagination creates something that is non-physical is when we write literary fiction. Literary fiction is in itself a huge field to cover, so I will narrow it down to writings that involve science fiction or fantasy. Writings in this genre rely the most on our imagination because most of the time everything in the book must be created strictly from the writers mind. There is nothing in our world that we can relate to some of the things, places, or creatures that get created when some writes a story. The first area were the non-physical has some effect of the physical is this ability to create such things and place them on paper. Today, the idea of magic, dragons, fairy forests can easily be created using our imagination. However, the first time it was created is what counts in the case. Not that the reworking of these ideas are not important to the advance of the genre, but it is the original idea that really counts. The idea of dragons, fairy forests, and advanced alien are to this day strictly fiction, not real. So, what caused this now generally understood idea to be created in the first place? A person in deep introspection of their imagination, which could have been caused by many natural sometimes illegal physical things, came up with the first idea of these non-physical things. Many different things that exist in their non-physical mind get all jumbled together and out comes this unique completely unnatural being, event, or place. These then get created and put together with words on paper in a logical and rational way that ignites some reader own imagination.

Here, is where the physical that has a causational effect of the non-physical. There are hundreds upon hundreds of science fiction and fantasy literary works out there. Each with its own plot, characters, creatures, and places. In some way each is unique in its own little way, some more than others. Each book has been influenced by either previous books or some idea that solely belongs to the author. Many times throughout my own life I have been asked why I like reading books such as these. Each time I reply with relating the story to a personal movie that gets created in my mind as I read. Here is the unique part, if I read a book and a friend of mine reads the same book at the same speed as me, each of us will see the movie differently. Each of our movies is built differently by our own personal imagination, creating something in our non-physical mind that is unique to each person. Many times I have used the term unique as being important in these matters. If something isn’t unique, that means it can be repeated in different people, which could ultimately get explained by physical means. If something is unique, that means there is a sense of randomness. With randomness the chance of a physical explanation becomes very remote. Here the unique “movie” that gets created by reading some literary work, is in itself another’s unique “movie”.  In both cases from the creation of the idea that builds a story, to a reader creating a “movie” in their minds by reading the story based on the idea, there is a circular causation between the physical and the non-physical. A non-physical idea creates a physical story which in turns creates a non-physical “movie” in some readers mind. Again the circular movement is kept intact. Literary fiction differs from abstract art because of its aboutness. Artwork is a picture that ignites a mental image of that picture. Literary fiction is a story that ignites a mental state, or mental movie, of the story, from the plot to any possible moral statements.

Evidence of interactive dualism is everywhere; you just have to know where to look. Going through the history of art, the evidence of dualism is built right into it. Literary fiction, more specifically science fiction and fantasy, would not be on our bookshelves if it were not for the interaction between our physical brain and our non-physical minds. In respect to the general field of philosophy of the mind, interactive dualism does not get enough credit. Some theories take some very difficult notions and try to apply it to the mind. As the old saying goes, most often the correct answer is usually the simplest one. The simplest answer to the mind and the brain is that they are in fact two different things, one that we can easily see, and another which is personal to each and every one of us.

Sources

Title: Answers.Com

URL: http://www.answers.com

Searched: Dualism

Books: Sanford Goldberg, Andrew Pessin. Gray Matters: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Mind, M.E. Sharpe; August 1, 1997

Do you consider an architect a designer? Is the work of an industrial designer design? If you answer yes to either of these questions, than why is it that some people define the act of design for the digital world to only belonging to the visual side of things? I’ve recently been criticized for calling myself a designer, a user experience designer to be exact. One of my favorite quotes regarding the ambiguous definition of design is “Design’s fundamental role is problem solver”. While this is a great definition of design, it doesn’t really help to justify calling myself a designer, even though my primary role is to solve problems. (Note: The actual title that is prescribed to me is meaningless. What matters to me is the fact that I am recognized as designer, and that the work that I do is design.)

In the work that I do everyday, I try to solve problems for clients, their customers or users, and the problems that plague my own life. What is it about my work that makes me a designer? The key is in the steps taken to create a solution, and more importantly the intent behind that solution. Before a final solution is every discovered, many iterations are explored through sketching and modeling. This ensures that all possible angles are covered, and the problem space is throughly explored to get past the obvious answers and get to the truly extraordinary. Why do these activities make me a designer? Because it’s the same general process, and a proven process, that other ‘designers’ take to creating creative solutions. This process isn’t new, in fact I’d wage it’s been around for centuries thought I don’t know of any source to back up this claim. The fact that some will dismiss this activity as not design simply because it doesn’t result in a rich visual simply doesn’t add up. Not saying that visual design, or emotional design as I like to think of it, isn’t design. As it’s just another slice of the design pie, and all I’m asking is to be included in the pie.

While the process that I follow is important, it pales in comparision to the intent that goes into the solutions I create. Intent is what separates design from art. Artists create as a means of self expression, where designers create based on the expression of others. One argument that I’ve been given as to why I’m not a designer is the fact that I perform research before every thinking about a possible solution. My response to this is that for something to be considered designed, it must have research (‘research’ includes both design and user research) to both inform and validate the decisions that went into the creation process. Without research, your acting more like an artist than a designer. The research is what guarantees that the end result is an expression of the people that will be consuming the solution, and not solely that of the creator.

So why am I a designer? It’s because I throughly explore the problem space of an issue through research, modeling, sketching, designing, and validation using time tested methods that have lead to innovative discoveries, products, and solutions time and time again. It’s because I’m not the audience for the objects I create, rather it’s those that will ultimately be interacting with the solution that is the true audience. It’s because I want to make the world better, and what would make it better for myself may not make it better for you.

Ohh, did you answer ‘No’ to the first two questions? Then there is no hope for you.

Lately, we’ve been able to watch him take his first steps to being a normal “human”. Having barely started his adventures into crawling, Tristan feels the need to spend his time standing up leaning against things more than anything. Crawling is just a mechanism for him to go from standing on one piece of furniture to the next. This is no surprise to me, as I walked myself at 7 months old. Now, we’re hoping that Tristan won’t walk THAT soon, but I wouldn’t be shocked to see him taking his first stand alone steps in the next month or so.

The biggest transition has been the eating of real food. The doc says the food doesn’t really do anything for him besides get him used to eating food rather than milk. Feeding him his baby food is always an adventure though, but not in a bad way. Tristan getting his lunch or dinner is generally a very audible experience, filled with grunts, coos, and squeals. Some of this is probably my fault, as I try to get him to say ‘Nom Nom Nom’ when he is eating. Hopefully, one day he will say these three wonderful words while eating and I know it will be followed by me laughing my head off.

The first half of this crazy year is over, and the next is well under way. Hopefully, I’ll find more time to write about being a dad and the adventures of my son. But, as I’ve quickly learned being a dad takes A LOT of time.

P.S. This post would have been done 10 minutes ago, but Tristan crawled over and we got into a tickling match. I won for those interested.

I’ve been asked to be speak at the Innovation Camp to talk briefly on why User Experience Design is so important for start ups, and to explain how Prototyping can help lead to a better product. Prototyping is a process of exploration, that eventually leads to a vision of your product or service. During the course of my presentation, I’ll cover the importance of prototyping, how divergent thinking is key to the start of any prototyping process, and practical tools and methods that can used to bring your vision to life. I hope to see you later this month at St. Louis Innovation Camp!

Begin mind dump

They just don’t get it?

This is the wrong approach and leads to over discussing the variety of methods and techniques that exist in the world of user experience. Rather, we should be asking why we don’t get it? The people that have the ability to hire our services don’t care about paper prototyping, usability studies, or ethnographic interviews. They care about the value these activities can bring to their organization and how quickly they will be able to see that value manifest.

Defining the Value

Every project has a goal, and it’s that goal that determines what type of value needs to be provided by the project.

Examples of Project Goals (Reference):

• Insight into how the site/application users will think, act, and react when using the site/application
• Confidence that their site/application will function as a cohesive whole.
• Stakeholder consensus on what will be built and why it is being built.

The particular methods and techniques needed to discover, define, and provide the appropriate solution for any of these goals is dependent on context, environment, and culture. With this in mind, the sales process should be focused on defining what the client’s goal is for the project, and delivering a plan in which to accomplish that goal. Activities should be talked to at a high level until the project has been landed and the initial problem space explored.

Discovering Problem Space

The exact method in which a problem will be solved should never be defined until the problem space has been explored and defined. This can be accomplished either during the sales pursuit, or as a phase 0f a project. Defining the problem space is done by conducting internal stakeholder interviews, relying on past user research, or referring to research done by others. The outcome should be a detailed plan of user research, analysis and modeling, time to design, and validation. This can take the form of a follow up proposal, or as a set of recommendations for them to internalize and use as they see fit.

Yes, there is a danger of losing the project after this proposed initial phase, but the likelihood is low as the team will have established themselves as partners and give the client a clear understanding of how the end solution will deliver the value they are looking for. The pay off for this risk are longer and more in depth projects.

Planning UX Activities

There are a variety of possible activities that can be performed to design a solution for a given problem. Some activities are better than others however, given a particular context. In fact, the final set of activities should be laid out only after the team has a clear understanding of the client, user base, and problem space. There is no such thing as the silver bullet in User Experience, and it would be a mistake to act any other way.

When pitching proposed activities, the overall process and end deliverables shouldn’t be the topic of discussion. Rather, give a detailed explanation of the value each activity brings and how that value will assist with the next stage of the overall process. Speak the language of the client, industry, and user base when expressing the value. Don’t bog it down with professional jargon that needs to be explained.

End mind dump

2010 New Year’s Resolutions

• Find a mentor to help round out my underdeveloped design skills
• Design and Build a website
• Present on UX at a conference again
• Write more on this blog
• Organize a charity donation for Childhood Leukemia in honor of my cousin Lily
• Create an online outlet to write short stories
• Take my wife on a great vacation
• Attend interactions, IA Summit, and IDEA
• Try to teach my son something valuable (Going to be a challenge since he will be an infant/toddler)
• Solidify the UX Community in St. Louis (If interested in helping please let me know)
• Speak on UX at a local college or university
• Write more for Johnny Holland
• Learn from my numerous failures in 2009
• Cut the number of Twitter friends that I haven’t met down
• Learn how to be a better amateur photographer with my Nikon D40