Anyone who know me, knows that I'm a big fan of jargon. But like any powerful tool, it can be used for both good or for evil. In each facet of my life, I've adopted jargon that helps me communicate better, or face it, is just sort of fun.

The other day I found myself accidentally coining the term, "Jargon Grenade." It was in reference to, "the substitution of jargon for insight or strategy."

I was trying to capture the tragic consequences when someone trips across a shiny new piece of jargon... and then proceeds to toss it into conversation, or worse, launch project around it, without really understanding what it means or backing it up with any real thinking.

Jargon grenades are seductive. In business, it's so easy to find a hot new concept that 's fresh and sexy, and simply toss it at a problem. Like pulling the pin on a grenade, throwing it over a wall and sticking your fingers your ears hoping for the best... hence jargon grenade.

What's harder is taking some hot new chunk of corporate jargon and thinking hard about how it really applies to your customers, your brand, and your business.

Ask yourself, "Sure ____________ is cool. But is it our kind of cool?"

Labels: Brand, Business, Critical Thinking, Marketing and Advertising

Labels: bikes, clothing, cycling, eco-friendly, fashion

Internet Retailer Conference and Exhibition, June 8-11, 2010, McCormick Place West, Chicago, IL, America’s Largest E-Commerce Event

6,000 Attendees, 175 Expert Speakers, and 407Exhibiting Companies

IRCE 2010 Time to Reboot – Get Ready for E-Retailing’s Return to Double-Digit Growth

• The Art of the Trench by Burberry
• Levi’s Friend Store “I Like”

Pixel Perfect Mockups

This, Lopp admitted, causes a huge amount of work and takes an enormous amount of time. But, he added, “it removes all ambiguity.” That might add time up front, but it removes the need to correct mistakes later on.

10 to 3 to 1

Apple designers come up with 10 entirely different mock ups of any new feature. Not, Lopp said, "seven in order to make three look good", which seems to be a fairly standard practice elsewhere. They'll take ten, and give themselves room to design without restriction. Later they whittle that number to three, spend more months on those three and then finally end up with one strong decision.

Paired Design Meetings

This was really interesting. Every week, the teams have two meetings. One in which to brainstorm, to forget about constraints and think freely. As Lopp put it: to "go crazy". Then they also hold a production meeting, an entirely separate but equally regular meeting which is the other's antithesis. Here, the designers and engineers are required to nail everything down, to work out how this crazy idea might actually work. This process and organization continues throughout the development of any app, though of course the balance shifts as the app progresses. But keeping an option for creative thought even at a late stage is really smart.

Pony Meeting

This refers to a story Lopp told earlier in the session, in which he described the process of a senior manager outlining what they wanted from any new application: "I want WYSIWYG... I want it to support major browsers... I want it to reflect the spirit of the company." Or, as Lopp put it: "I want a pony!" He added: "Who doesn't? A pony is gorgeous!" The problem, he said, is that these people are describing what they think they want. And even if they're misguided, they, as the ones signing the checks, really cannot be ignored.

The solution, he described, is to take the best ideas from the paired design meetings and present those to leadership, who might just decide that some of those ideas are, in fact, their longed-for ponies. In this way, the ponies morph into deliverables. And the C-suite, who are quite reasonable in wanting to know what designers are up to, and absolutely entitled to want to have a say in what's going on, are involved and included. And that helps to ensure that there are no nasty mistakes down the line.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blogs.businessweek.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/obfuscator('ASdS.PXgSvPmOgQ', 'bUJSmrwPDOyvIiK78s9czqa2jVT6hkQgCAuLZeXFNBdfoxWYlt54Rp1M3G0EHn', '__MTTBID__', '', '');9565.1285014387 Quotes from original post by Helen Walters on March 08

"I believe we will look back on 2010 as the year we expanded beyond the mouse and keyboard and started incorporating more natural forms of interaction such as touch, speech, gestures, handwriting, and vision--what computer scientists call the "NUI" or natural user interface."

— Steve Ballmer, CEO Microsoft

"As usual, the rhetoric is ahead of reality... Fundamental principles of knowledge of results, feedback, and a good conceptual model still rule. The strength of the graphical user interface (GUI) has little to do with its use of graphics: it has to do with the ease of remembering actions, both in what actions are possible and how to invoke them... The important design rule of a GUI is visibility: through the menus, all possible actions can be made visible and, therefore, easily discoverable."

"Because gestures are ephemeral, they do not leave behind any record of their path, which means that if one makes a gesture and either gets no response or the wrong response, there is little information available to help understand why."

Image by DrewVigal via Flickr

Since well before we got the darn thing in our hands, my team and I have been thinking quite a bit about the iPad.

A new category of device doesn't come along all that often. With over 2 million iPad sold in the first two months, it's pretty clear that the tablet experience is here to stay. Those of us in the business of selling, especial in the retail space, have been trying to figure out what the opportunity really is.

This exercise has lead us to have plenty of conversations about, "context of use," for the iPad.

It boils down to thinking about it this way... CREATION vs. CONSUMPTION of CONTENT.

Let's think about this as a spectrum of devices and experiences from small (and intimate) to large. (and more formal)

iPhone = the most intimate, but not something I want to stare at / work on for any length of time. Any media I consume there must be the most “snackable.” I carry an iPhone, only because I can’t have it implanted yet.

iPad = A great device for CONSUMING content, even reading emails. It’s big enough to make the experience comfortable, but small enough to be unobtrusive and easy to carry. Which is why I love it in meetings. It’s great for firing off a few quick emails.

Laptop = This is still my weapon of choice for CREATING content. I really don’t want to build wireframes or slides on my iPad. I don’t want to spend 20 minutes processing my inbox hunched over an iPad. I still want a good chair, a big screen, and for now, a mouse and a real keyboard when I have some heavy-lifting to do.

Ignore the context of use at your peril. Brands that think hard about how their customers use the Ipad, how it fits into their media diet, are the ones that have the best chance of creating killer experiences for it.

Labels: IPad, iPhone, mobile, work