ZuZiZVuZ

Production and QA

2005-03-06T01:44:00.000-08:00

The two most important take aways from Phase 4: Production and QA (Quality Assurance), from Chapter 6 of Web ReDesign are the emphasis on communication and the long range view.

That communication is essential on any project involving more than one person is a given, but among team members and between the team and the client there are many opportunities for missed connections.

For instance, an important communication element between the team and client revolves around the budget. Specifically, nonperformance by the client, for example, to deliver content will impact the team’s ability to achieve timely performance within the budget. Calling out nonperformance and its consequences at the outset of the project, alerting the client before the due date to the due date itself and the consequences of missing it, advising the client if a due date has been missed and the impending consequences of continued failure and informing the client that the consequences are tolling, are all crucial to effective communications between the team and the client. This methodology is effective in that it follows a logical, predicable path that lays out the problem, the fix and the cost of not fixing. It is a series of factual messages that avoids emotional overtones. Each message is clear. Each message is actionable.

The second take away is the importance of the long range view. An example of this can be seen in the Client Spec Sheet (http://www.web-redesign.com/). Taking the time to complete a spec sheet upfront is analagous to having taken the long view. How? Because it literally ensures that everyone will, if not be on the same page, they will at least work off of the same page. Ultimately it means that everyone, client and team members alike, has access to a clearly stated set of specifications. This limits the opportunities for scope creep. Changes can be clearly identified as changes. Taking the long range view means not only that the goals have been identified, but that the benchmarks have also been identified, and all can work most efficiently -- or at least have no reason beyond their control for working inefficiently -- on achieving the goals. In short, taking the long range view supports both effective communication and efficiency.

RSS: The Equalizer

2005-02-21T16:25:00.000-08:00

RSS technology is an equalizer: Individuals can pull and individuals can push. The timeshifting and user control of RSS (Really Simple Syndication) is yet another advance in technology putting the individual in the driver’s seat. Users can link up to RSS aggregators and get feeds from major news organizations such as the BBC, New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, as well as from any other RSS-enabled web sites. This works for audio (NPR, for example) as well as text files. But more than that, it is nearly as easy to RSS-enable an individual’s content, both text and audio, as it is to acquire the feed.

Users can have content pulled automatically whenever something new is added and view or listen to it at their convenience. This will make it more difficult for advertisers to target users. The web site market of businessmen and women who visit the news sites between 9 and 10 am will no longer be the captive audience it once was.

As we know, content is no longer the exclusive property of media organizations. Individuals can be and are content providers as well. Blogs have been around for awhile now and while their affect is still to be gauged, that they are having an affect cannot be denied. While various PDA’s have access to the Internet and thus to blogs and news sites, the screen size is a limiting factor.

Audio content is fundamentally different, however, and with the advent of podcasting we will see even more individuals speaking out, as it were. The big difference with podcasting as opposed to blogging is that one can access a podcast from any MP3 player. The listener is not tied to the computer for access.

As individuals we’re having our say and consuming what we want when we want it AND evading the advertisers at the same time. Where’s the catch?

Gestalt Principles of Design

2005-02-14T22:11:00.000-08:00

Pintos by Bev Doolittle at http://www.bnr-art.com/doolitt/pintos.htm is a good example of breakdown or merger in the Gestalt Figure/Ground Principle. It takes a minute to be able to pick out the fact that the picture is of pinto ponies.

Transylvanian Woods, 2001 by Sylvia Plachy is found at http://www.aperture.org/store/prints-detail-w.aspx?ID=405 and is a good example the Gestalt Equilibrium Principle in both the vertical and horizontal divisions into thirds, as well as an example of the Gestalt Figure/Ground Principle in the use of positive and negative space. It is also an excellent example of the Gestalt Principle of Closure in that all sides of the photo are open, inviting us to take a walk into the misty woods.

Vatican by James Wiley is at http://www.visionlightgallery.com/gallery/product1.cfm?SID=1&Product_ID=7452 is also a good example of the Gestalt Principle of Closure in that we cannot actually see the columns because of the shadows, but the suggestion is there in the sunlit stripes. This principle is likewise shown in the open edges at all points in the photo including at the bottom where the walkway is cropped and at the sides and top where the columns are either cropped or disappear into the shadows. There is here, as in the other images, a good example of the Gestalt Principle of Figure/Ground in the use of positive and negative space. There is also the Gestalt Principle of Equilibrium here in the dwarfed figure of the priest or monk. In fact he is very nearly in the center of the photo, but because of the sharp contrast and the curve of the walkway and the columns lining the walkway there is tension in this image. Whether the tension denotes man’s humility or his insignificance depends on how one views the Vatican. This, of course, demonstrates the Gestalt Principle of Isomorphic Correspondence.

Planning, Planning, Planning

2005-02-05T23:01:00.000-08:00

When asked to name three key learning points or best practices, it's tempting to paraphrase the real estate axiom--location, location, location--with planning, planning, planning! Having said that and acknowledging the truth of it, I suppose I could break it down it bit.

The first key element in planning a project is to define the objective. This defining process should be, even if mandated by someone else (customer, boss, etc.) , an organic one where everyone on the team and all the stakeholders contribute to the vision. Where the majority of the perspectives merge is the nexus of the objective. Out of that (probably messy) defining process emerges commonalities that all can agree upon and work toward.

The second key element is that not only team members, but all stakeholders, be given voice in the planning. Access to customers and bosses is typically easy enough to achieve if they have not already sufficiently articulated their wishes or if further questions arise. The more difficult stakeholder voice to access is that of the users. It is sometimes so difficult that role playing, story boarding and/or narratives must be constructed to focus attention on achieving a successful product. Unfortunately, even identifying who the users will be is sometimes obvious but nevertheless difficult or worse, overlooked.

For example, I know of one organization whose management decided they wanted a different sort of accounting software. A program which would allow management to amalgamate and manipulate the numbers in different ways. That is, in a more flexible way, so that, depending on organizational objectives, management could easily re-sort the financial data to help them get clarity in formulating strategy. They acquired a program that was pretty close to what they wanted and they tinkered and had some more code written and finally came up with software that could do the accounting equivalent of one-handed backflips and they were happy. Alas, the billing clerks, accounts receivable and accounts payable folks -- that is, the employees who were dependent upon using the software to do their jobs -- were not happy. Several steps were added to what had been simple and straightforward tasks. Information they needed to have visible was several screens away from where they needed it. Some information was not visible at all until after they had input their data and released it -- a situation that created endless clean up work. The key here is that these same (overlooked) users were the ones who input the data that management needed to do its managing and planning. While it seems more than obvious that this overlooked group of users should have been consulted, it was probably simply a matter that it was so obvious no one thought they needed to actually name it and provide for it.

The final key element is the timeline. Typically this is formulated by working backward from the due date. The timeline provides not only a degree of control, but a methodology for exercising that control. It shows which are the non-negotiable points and which can be juggled, stretched or shrunk. At any point in the project consulting the timeline will tell you where you should be and where you must be. If you are behind schedule, the impact on the project is apparent and the solution is somewhere on that same timeline. If you are ahead of schedule, it also gives you a clear picture of how you might either improve the quality of the project, ease the cost or otherwise use the breathing room.

While all parts of the planning process are important, it seems to me that these three: defining the objective, focusing on the users' needs, and creating and working with a timeline are the three key elements.

Groupthink

2005-01-30T01:29:00.000-08:00

In terms of team work, a highly cohesive team has it's strengths, but it may harbor one potentially fatal flaw: groupthink. Groups smelling of smugness and superiority bespeak groupthink. When everyone is so "onboard" that re-thinking or questioning by a group member is treated as disloyalty, then the group is headed for trouble. The basic failure of groupthink is to not recognize reality beyond the confines of the group. The world is not within the group and is thus apt to throw a curve or two into the group's best laid plans. Groupthink denies critical and objective thought and denies the recognition that alternatives need to be considered and planned for.

So, what do you do if your team is humming along, everyone is compatible, you're on schedule and everything is working out so, so perfectly! If you built safeguards against groupthink into your team, you're probably headed for success. If not, you're probably in for a big surprise and not of the delightful variety.

A truly open team, where any member can question assumptions and decisions is a start. Searching out different scenarios and ways to deal with them is another. Allowing team members time to reflect on decisions is another. Getting an outside opinion is yet another. Having team members take turns actively challenging decisions or direction is good way to systematically force some fresh air into the process. If possible, rotating leadership roles is another systematic way to address this potential problem. Gatekeepers are important to this process in not only making sure everyone is heard, but in keeping the environment safe for the speaker, should he or she be persistent in disagreement or questioning.

If the team members have divergent views and are outspoken about it, groupthink is unlikely to become a problem. If, however, like-thinking individuals find themselves together in a team, they should early on decide on ways to systematically challenge themselves and their work to keep their efforts properly on target and truly effective.

How do Standards Impact our Ability to Communicate to our Target Audience & When or Why Might We Not Want to Conform to those Standards?

2005-01-29T21:59:00.000-08:00

A loose analogy for the purposes of this question is that Internet standards are to the Internet what grammar is to language. If all there was to language was word meaning, we would be quite limited in our ability to convey even slightly complex messages, much less concepts or ideas. In terms of grammar, we consider elements of time (tense), concepts, such as naming conventions (nouns for things, verbs for action, adjectives for descriptors, and so on), structure (word order), punctuation (e.g., to indicate word and phrase relationships within a sentence) and the like. We come to agreement on these elements so that our usage of language (as a communication tool) can convey greater and more complex meaning. In this way what I say or write has a pretty good chance of being understood by what you hear or read. This is true insofar as we are speaking and writing the same language, of course.

This analogy exposes an underlying assumption, which is that standards do not exist in a vacuum. The point of them is that they are adopted by the majority of users in order to be effective and the greater the adoption rate the greater is the effectiveness of the standards.

Allowing the foregoing assumption, a way of thinking of Internet standards is as communication extenders. When we have standards we extend our reach, that is, we can send our message to more users (a larger audience) and we can likewise receive and/or retrieve information from more sources (a larger resource).

There are a number of standard setting entities for the Internet and, because it is a complex network and because technology continues to advance, new standard setting requirements emerge. This then gives rise to more standard setting entities with the result that sometimes there is overlap or outright competition. (Greenstein-Vasarhelyi: Electronic Commerce, Second Edition, "Internet Standards, Protocols, and Languages," p. 273 & 299) .

The obvious problem is at least two-fold. On the one hand, while the Internet is global, the earth is organized according to national boundaries with attendant government security issues. This gives rise to a protective tendency rather than an expansive stance in setting standards. On the other, and to the greatest extent, the standard setting bodies are voluntary, cooperative and without enforcement powers and thus, by their nature, tend to be process oriented and slow moving. Commerce is competitive and speed is of the essence. This then brings another tension to the process of standardization.

When or why might I choose to deliver information that does not conform to these standards? If I not only have a limited and specialized audience that I know I can reach without meeting these standards, and also specifically do not want a wider and diverse audience to access that information, then I might so choose.

To revert to the grammar analogy, William Faulkner wrote a book entitled, The Sound and the Fury. In it he had several chapters where the point of view was that of the character, Benjy, described as a "33 year old idiot." Faulkner wrote for Benjy a stream of consciousness that contained no indication of time, as in past or future tense. As one who recognizes and uses standardized English grammar, reading these chapters is hard going. Yet, the reader can become immersed in the rhythm of the language and pull meaning from it. The meaning is mostly of sensation (what Benjy sees and hears) and ultimately recognizable, if not easily so. (As an aside, Faulkner's famously long and involved sentences gave his editors fits. He is credited with once having said that he was going to deliver a manuscript with several pages of periods at the end so readers could put them anywhere they liked.)

The point here is that Faulkner was not writing for everyone who could read. Faulker had a tale to tell and a specific way he wanted to communicate a voice that was not normally heard, that of a severely developmentally disabled adult. For those who are sufficiently interested to try to "get inside the head" of such a character and follow the broken narrative thread he provided, this was the way. Not everyone was interested, of course, but for those who were, this grammatically challenging writing gave them an expanded consciousness of the world. The particular point here is that at the time this novel was published (1929), giving voice to a character such a Benjy was new and, in the literary world, unheard of.

Most and Least Appealing Team Roles

2005-01-23T13:39:00.000-08:00

The most appealing team role for me is the one in which I can contribute most effectively. This may change given other teams members and their skills and the project at hand. Generally my strengths tend to reside in the management/content area. In terms of tasks, I am best at initiating; in terms of process, my strength is gatekeeping; and in terms of function, the most appealing role is as project manager or producer.

The reasons for my preferences are two-fold. First, virtually all of my experience is in these roles, so there is a strong comfort zone element. I have always been proud of and pleased with the work of the teams with which I was involved and the feedback I received indicated that the other team members were likewise pleased with the results. By inference, this tells me that my contributions were successful and my teammates felt that their contributions were successful as well. I found that being proud of "my" teams' efforts was a great deal more satisfying than anything I had done alone, and in some sense transcended ego. Also by inference, because my contribution was always in a similar role, moving out of that role risks putting "my" team at risk for failure because I might not be good enough in another role. After having felt the high of success, I fear the compounded sense of depression at failure.

Second, I lack the training, education and skills to provide design and technical support, so in some sense the role of project manager/producer (or editor or copywriter, in terms of skills) are most appealing by default. This, of course, suggests some circular re-enforcement. Notwithstanding the fact that my teamwork experience has not involved web design, had I not been successful in my project manager/producer roles I would have certainly sought a different role. To the extent I did not have the appropriate training, education or skills, I would have sought them out had they appealed to me.

This, then logically leads to the least appealing team role for me. In terms of task roles, I am least effective at clarifying and elaborating and in terms of process roles, I am least skillful in harmonizing. The least appealing functional role would be the one where I was unable to contribute effectively or at all. This would be embarrassing for me and disheartening for my teammates. On the basis of skills, any role on either the design or technical teams could be named. However, I have a sufficient interest in design which, although out of my comfort zone not to mention skill set, would motivate me to do whatever I could to get up to speed to contribute my best to the team.

So in terms of the least appealing team role for me, any of the technical team roles could be named: technical lead, developer, HTML programmer or database administrator. Not only do I not have the necessary skills, but more, I do not have the interest to dig in and, by hook or crook, make the best possible contribution I could.

Communication with Team Members

2005-01-16T22:50:00.000-08:00

It is difficult to generalize as to how I prefer to communicate with team members. In a perfect world and in general, my preference is to communicate in person. I like all the nonverbal cues (body language, facial expressions, voice inflection, back channel cues, laughter, eye contact, listening modes, interruptions, yawns, etc.) that come with that. The efficiency is generally high, especially if the team is not a large one. On the other hand, the time-space continuum being what it is, in person communications are not always especially efficient if you factor in the logistics of actually getting together. Indeed, it is not always possible.

Generally I find the early planning and brainstorming sessions require face time. Partly it's helpful to allow you get to know your teammates--each one's style and sense of humor, for example--and to make sure you're all on the same page. Once the work is underway, email or a bulletin board generally serves best. Having communications in writing can cut down on misunderstandings. Email or a bulletin board has the advantage of allowing team members to deal with messages/requests at their convenience.

Obviously, urgency plays a role in the best way to communicate and arrangements need to be made at the outset on the best way to get an urgent message out to the group.

Team Work

2005-01-16T22:02:00.000-08:00

When I think back to teams I have worked on, I always think back to my work on organizing a church retreat. It was my first independent team work, as opposed to team work as part of paid employment. It was a thoroughly pleasant experience. I organized the planning group and then shared leadership duties at the retreat with our intern minister. The fallout from the "deceptive advertising" (we said hot tubs would be part of the retreat which was not true; it was the 80s, what can I say?) notwithstanding, we all had a swell time from start to finish. Everyone involved in the planning did their job, we had fun, laughed a lot, brainstormed wildly, pitched in as needed and when the actual retreat came to pass, we found our mood was infectious. The retreat was a time for reflection, certainly, but in a relaxed, friendly and accepting environment. Long term friendships came out of that retreat; in fact I was maid of honor when our intern minister married the next year!

Obviously I consider this team and its work effective. Why do I think that was so? Largely because we were all relative neophytes and felt invested in planning a successful retreat. We had all volunteered, so we all wanted to take part. We all knew each other, but were not friends particularly. We belonged to the same church and saw each other at church on Sundays, but that was about it. Presumably as members of the same church, we shared some basic values, but I can't prove that; this particular church was most accepting of everyone from high church conservatives to save the whales/feed the hungry social activist types.

I think that because we were all neophytes, there was a feeling of equality, notwithstanding the roles taken on. If the retreat was to be successful we all had to pitch in -- each role was critical. Our brainstorming sessions were especially productive because no idea was too crazy to consider and no one seemed tied to preconceived notions of how things must work. This also gave us a childlike freedom to laugh and play and enjoy the process, sometimes in spite of ourselves! Our group overflowed with goodwill and that was infectious. How it was that we had no real conflict strikes me now as simply incredible luck.

Oh. The subject of the retreat? Intimacy.