Over the past weeks Magnus, Jacob and I have been discussing how to improve, how to develop cph127. We are discussing the layout, the content, some new functionality’s and maybe a few in depth writing’s about design, strategy and innovation - manifesto’s.
But what would you like? Where do you think we should improve? If we should cover exact your specific need, what would that mean in terms of a new cph127?
Or let me put it the other way around – how do you use cph127 today and what are you missing?
5 comments so far
I applaud your efforts to understand and serve your audience better. A user-centered mentality is wonderful to see. But let me rain on the parade slightly and suggest that this isn’t the way to go out about, necessarily. You may get all the info you need, but from my experience in helping companies act strategically in serving their users/customers, I’ve got a couple of comments:
- don’t only ask your users for fixes - you’re only getting at the expressed needs in that case, but we know the innovations can come from unexpressed needs
- you have limits in what you can get from people by simply having them write down answers to questions - what if you found 6 readers who fit an idea profile and spent 30 minutes on the phone with them (or Skype or IM or something) having an open-ended dialogue about their interests, their reading, their career, their web surfing behavior - and acting on that insight is YOUR job, not the users
Just throwing that out there - good luck with your evolution!
Steve, you are SO right, and thank you for your insights
In fact I tried to put the “how”-question in stead of “what-can-we-do-better”-question in the post, but okay, I think I understanding what you mean……
I wont come up with any excuses beside one comment on Skype. I agree 100% with you that Skype is a possibility, definitely – but what I didn’t realize until you answer was, that Skype of course is known by you dear readers J
I’ve been using Skype my self for over 2 years now, and it’s amazing.
The synchronic dialogue in a phone call I – or of course face2face - is definitely the best thing. No doubt. The asynchrony dialogue on a weblog is a different thing, and as you mentioned the open-ended questions are important in facilitation the dialogue.
So, anyone joining me and Steve in a Skype-call?
Any other great ideas on how the cph127-crew can learn from you – the readers and contributors – and derive valuable insights for future development of cph127?
Btw - my skypename is “hanshenrikheming”
All the best
Hans Henrik
I agree fully with Steve too: people don’t articulate emerging needs so observation is needed to understand their use and relation to product and services. Allowing the question to emerge will allow providing the appropriate answer.
Talking about that, I would like to introduce the ideas of Jean Marie Floch, a semiotician who investigated people relation to the metro in Paris among many other things. Illuminating, brilliant and so relevant. I think that Floch analysis of people’s behaviour in terms of meaningful processes provide a solid ground to address today design’s challenges.
See here: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?isbn=033376014X&itm=2
Oh, but I am loosing focus now…
I definitely agree with Niti that you should increase the font size.
Some kind of conference calls on Skype to discuss it would be a very good idea too. As a former boss used to say, “meeting people is always better than phone and phone is always better than emails”:)
Skype: jacques-julien
I agree that it is difficult to give this kind of feedback. The comment from Niti about expressed and unexpressed needs resonates with me too. There is a sense that the things I am interested in are not neccessarily relevant to contributors to cph127. Perhaps I am not alone in this…
I’d like to see more attention toward cross-cultural issues in design practice. There is so much to be done in this area that affects us all.
I have also been giving thought to what I see as a “dumbing down” of design practice. I need to be careful how I qualify this statement because I could be misconstrued as a ludite - which I most definitely am not
I work daily with young people who aspire to be design professionals. The concern I have is their overriding preference for, and reliance on, purely software driven, digital solutions to all design problems of content and form. I find the result is a narrowing down of innovation possibilities.
At college level, I am actively promoting openess to integration of digital media and [for want of a better term] traditional media. My objective is to foster openess to what might be described as “intermedia”…This is not a new concept but it is one that I think is worth analysis and discussion.
Undeniably, digital techologies are amazing, and effective, in their ability to evolve rapidly according to human needs. Skype is a wonderful example of this.
Mcluhan suggested that new technologies cause exisiting technologies to shift in their role and emphasis. There seems to me to be tremendous potential in this “shift” to re-invent or repurpose how techologies and media can be utilised.
I think a great example of this convergence of old and new techologies is the Bikes Against Bush Project. In this instance, the point is not that the project was politically controversial, but that it merged interactivity,the global reach of the internet, and the 19th Century technology of the bicycle to strong effect: http://www.bikesagainstbush.com/blog/
That’s my feedback - hope it seems relevant and makes sense in this context…