The Pursuit of Happiness

Here in the US of A, we celebrate Independence Day on July 4th. This is a holiday I usually associate with recreational activities: picnics, barbecues, outdoor recreation, fireworks, parades and lots of 50%-off sales. It's a pretty mellow day.

The morning after, I was watching the news program CBS Sunday Morning, which ran a segment they called The Pursuit of Happiness. I realized then that there have been several threads of personal inquiry converging with respect to that pursuit: Happiness, Independence, and Community. Perhaps I've found my direction.

Happiness and Independence

Am I happy? I think I am, though there are certain frustrations I have. One of the big ones is the constant desire to be more productive, because I believe that producing more original content is my way to independence.

I used to think that the key to unlocking my productivity monster would be finding the right company. The right company would provide me with the right sense of mission, and so I've been open to finding the right opportunity. In fact, I was in the early stages of forming an business partnership with someone I know, until that person pointed out on one occasion that I didn't sound entirely committed. Oh, how I argued, until I realized that he was right: deep down, I hated the idea of giving up my identity. It was a highly clarifying but disappointing moment. We didn't pursue the relationship.

Since that moment of clarity, I've been more committed to independence as an actual path; I would say that my sense of mission is buoyed by the following statement of belief:

• Happiness will come from creating yummy original content...
• Which will create opportunities for me to be self-sufficient...
• And therefore free me to continue to do the things that I enjoy...
• Which apparently is being the author of said original content...

The lead-off story on CBS Sunday Morning connected the themes of Independence Day with Positive Psychology, a growing movement to scientifically understand the basis of well-being. Most Americans are familiar with the phrase Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness; it's written right into our Declaration of Independence, and was signed by the original 13 colonies on July 4th, 1776. While "the pursuit of happiness" is one of our most basic rights, it's entitlement without guarantee. Bummer!

I haven't read the Declaration of Independence since grade school---and even then I probably wasn't paying attention---so I was surprised by its relative brevity; rather than reproduce it in its entirety, I'll paraphrase it:

1. Ok, guys...there comes a time when a group of people must, due to difference of opinion and respect, dissolve their "political union" because it just isn't working anymore.

2. Here's our opinion of what we think life is all about: we think all men are created equal, have certain unalienable rights such as Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Governments should exist solely to secure these rights, deriving their power to do so from the People, in a just manner.

3. When--AHEM--some governments fail to do that, the People have the right to tear it down and build another one. Sure, this isn't something one does lightly, but when the government refuses to deal with the issues responsibly, action by the People is necessary.

4. Let's name names: the present King of England has been a real jerk, and his form of "governance" is one-sided and disrespectful. Here's a long list of things he's done to aggravate us...see what we're talking about? And yes, we've bent over backwards to work things out in a civilized manner, but he remains a capricious, greedy, and dangerous prick. We don't think he's going to change. And you know what? We've had it.

5. So today, we're announcing the world that we consider ourselves free and independent states. We will be friends again once this is resolved, but in the meantime: COME AND GET US!

Thomas Jefferson expressed the sentiment more eloquently, of course; you can find the text reproduced over on JWynia's site in his 4th of July post.

As I reviewed the text, it occured to me that the genuine pursuit of happiness takes guts and resolve. This quote from Frederick Douglass also came to mind:

"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them."

I described the Pursuit of Happiness as being one of our basic entitlements, but without guarantee that we will receive it. It is, however, our responsibility to go out and get it, and the Declaration of Independence makes it clear that this is a right worth fighting for. When we make excuses about "timing", or "convenience", we are resigning ourselves to suffer an imposition of injustice, by the tyranny of our own inaction.

Independence and Community

As I said, I've been talking to people about various partnership / company scenarios. I spent many hours talking to people about what this meant to them, and the main arguments for starting a company looked something like this:

• As individuals, we can achieve only so much. As a company, we will have skills that complement each other, which will as a group allow us to offer a more complete suite of services. We will also have the credibility of being a group, which combined with our talent can attract more interesting (and lucrative) projects.
• It would be cool to work together with really talented people. People we can count on. People we actually like working with.
• It would be cool to build a company that emphasized creative facilities: a great space to work in, a place to teach, etc.

These are all fine reasons to start a company, and because I've been interested in community recently it seemed to be a great "two-for-one" deal. Except...it didn't feel right. As I talked with potential partners, I found I needed an awful lot of convincing. And if there's anything that sucks the wind out of a partnership-in-the-making, it's a lack of conviction from the person you're trying to partner with. Everyone I talked to was super enthusiastic about their company-building dreams, but I tended to ask questions like:

• What would be the company mission?
• How will we know we're fulfilling that mission?
• Who is the majority owner? In the case of an equal partnership, how would we resolve inevitable conflict of interest?
• How do you see me fitting into the operation? How do you see us working together? What do you see your role as?

And the doozy:

• What is the advantage of being in a company versus doing what I am already doing now?

The latter really was the sticking point for me because I feel like I'm finally on a path that I'm enjoying: the path of authorship. I like being personally responsible for what I say and do. The questions I asked were good ones, but they really were indicators of doubt wrapped in the cloak of due diligence. And doubt of that nature is NOT something you can tolerate from a business partner, because that indicates a lack of commitment to the whole, which bleeds energy, which is STARTUP DEATH. But I digress...just by asking that last question, I elevated myself to the level of the proposed company, and this tends to have a dampening effect on people who are excited by the very notion of creating something larger than themselves. It's probably not a bad question to ask, because when you're starting up you need to be pretty damn sure of the reason and rationale behind the decision if you're going to really sell it, but it's a real party pooper.

I like the idea of building companies, but I tend to frame the activity in terms of what's important to me, and not so much "what can we make". Here's a list of six directives that I think apply to me:

1. I want to work on my own stuff to create original properties. This is far and away more important to me than creating a company structure for the sake of having one.

2. I want to establish a reputation as a designer / developer / writer whatever. And I want to earn it with my own hands, and be personally accountable for what I put out there. That's how I think of authorship.

3. I want to create and contribute to a community of independent producers. I could join up with a community, but I have specific ideas about what I'd like to see from that.

4. I like creating sparks. For me, that means creating an empowering environment and positive energy, such that the "spark" occurs naturally. In other words, learning and teaching is important to me from the perspective of shared experience, not just for knowledge transfer.

5. If I did create a company or organization, it would exist primarily to provide the scaffolding for personal achievement and development of the individuals, in support of 4.

6. If I did create a company, it would have to be my company in that I would be the one to make the decisions. I am finally starting to accept this, and I'm also getting over the feeling that I have to apologize wanting things to be this way.

In a sense, this is my own Declaration of Independence.

Directive 6 is a completely new insight for me, and it's really the first time I've seriously thought that I may want to create a company. I have been pursuing the first 5 directives for years and never really considered the option, thinking that I was not up to the task, or that it was just too much of a hassle. These days, though, I'm more comfortable with the idea, and I must admit that with a group I could get more done. It feels a tad egotistical to think this way, because we're conditioned to think in terms of "team" and "democracy", but look at it this way: would you want a group of people voting on how you personally choose and pursue your interests? Do you want your own interests and dreams to be interpreted by some "team" with its own agenda and politics? No sir, I don't like it. The Pursuit of Happiness is, in my opinion, not about group consensus; it's about recognizing that we're all free to make our own decisions. The trick is figuring out that this is indeed within our reach, and then learning how to grasp.

So where does community fit into this? Isn't the mindset I described above counter to the spirit of community?

I think I've just figured it out: my values as I've listed them here are completely oriented toward empowering individuals, not organizations. I like to cheer people on! Persevere! Face demons! I support and applaud your efforts 100%! I think myself as a traveller on the same road.

While I don't know where this belief comes from, following through with it is incredibly important to me. It's funny I couldn't see this until I got called on my lack of commitment to the company idea. And now, I can see that this has been something of a recurring pattern when I have worked at other companies. With few exceptions, a company's underlying value was your heart and the company are one. My energies, however, are directed toward empowering the individual so they can shake free of whatever preconceptions limit their potential; company structure and management often are the limit.

I recognize, of course, that insight doesn't pay the bills. At least when one commits to a company, the company reciprocates with salary and benefits. This allows the individual to survive. This is not an automatic if one pursuits the path of freedom; think "Live Free or Die!" The Declaration of Independence, remember, was a declaration of war. If it had been a single colony declaring their independence, that would have been tantamount to declaring suicide. But when a community of like-minded individuals works together, the odds are significantly changed in their favor. So perhaps that's what I'm looking for in a community: shared values, a willingness to take action, and a belief that it will be good for everyone in the end.

Community and Happiness

In studies on happiness, everyone who was very happy could point to a strong social network of friends and family. And for all the shaking of fists and declarations of independence, all I really want is to be happy. The two are related.

If I am going to pursue the formation of a company or be part of a community of like-minded thinkers, what are my expectations? On my freelancer / idea forum, this is the pertinent rule I post:

• Don't be lame. Contribute constructively. Be respectful of each other.

And then there are my basic life beliefs:

• You can do anything, maybe badly, but that shouldn't stop you. You will be surprised by what you can do, and where it will take you.
• Keep yourself open to opportunity.
• Treasure the good people around you. Avoid the toxic ones.

Those would be the operating principles of any community I am a part of.

The Pursuit of Happiness is Happiness?

CBS Sunday Morning's segment ended with this observation:

Maybe Happiness is a journey, not a destination.

If that's the case, then my mission must be learning how to make maps.

The Worthlessness of Ideas

Commenter Ben Yoskovitz challenges the idea that ideas are worthless, a view I have stated one-sidedly in a recent post: Obsessing Over Lost Ideas. It's completely understandable that Ben would take affront to this, and he unleashes a laundry list of reasons why ideas are great.

Here's some of his points (check out his post for more detail):

• Ideas create communication.
• Ideas Have No Risk? Says Who?
• Ideas help us be more creative.
• Ideas lead to change.
• Ideas foster communication.
• Ideas are the birthplace of businesses.
• Ideas beget more ideas.
• Ideas foster enthusiasm.

Yes, yes, and yes! Don't get me wrong...I love ideas. My perspective, however, is that ideas by themselves have little worth from a "results" perspective. An idea that stays in my head just takes up space, so either I tell someone about it (useful!) or I do something with it (world changing!)

Ideas that Make Me Itch

The scenario that irks me is when someone believes that being "the original idea-haver" is an entitlement, and that anyone who actually goes and does something with it is ripping them off. When I used to be a teaching assistant for graphic design students, I would occassionally have to resolve complains that "Student B is ripping off my idea!" It usually came down to something like this:

"Dave, did you see Student B's work?"

"Yes, Student A. What about it?"

"She's totally ripping off my design!"

"Really? Tell me more."

"See how I'm using circular elements here on my layout? She's..." and here the student would lower his voice, humbled by the ethical sins he was about to expose, "...she's also using circles! Like me! You have to stop this! It's not fair!"

The thought that would go through my mind was, "What, did you invent the circle? Are you the first person to put it in a design? Sheesh!" I would usually tell them something that the circle is a pretty basic element, and it was how you really used it that would make a difference...look, there's so many other ways you can combine size, tone, image, etc to make a completely different look that blows away "The Circle Stealer", who would happily go on with her business learning instead of, you know, looking over her shoulder.

Then there's the scenario where someone believes in idea-work equivalency; that is, having the idea in the first place entitles one to claim credit for all the work that was done to make it happen. Their argument is, "Hey, you wouldn't have been able to do anything without my idea, so really everything you've done based on it belongs to me." While this perhaps is true (and this is when I wish I'd studied Rhetoric in college), it's also incredibly disrespectful to the people who got off their asses and did the work. I have a particularly strong allergic reaction to people like this.

Ideas as Catalysts

I don't think what I'm saying is an argument against what Ben is saying. I actually agree with all his points; our difference may be where we put the emphasis. I would say that there's three ways I measure the "worth" of an idea:

• As a catalyst for action.
• As a catalyst for communication.
• As a catalyst for community.

My position is that though ideas are catalysts, the meaningful expression of worth is a result of the complete reaction. A catalyst without something to catalyze is just inert, sitting and doing nothing.

On the other hand, a catalyst is a substance that enables incredible things to happen. While a catalyst is inert by itself, so is that pile of resources. A true catalyst enables you to transmute that pile of resources from junk into gold. And truly, that is worth some serious bucks.

So if ideas can be catalysts in the way I describe, aren't they then by definition worth something? Well, no...most ideas are not catalysts. They are wishful thinking.

Imagination versus Catalysts

A non-technical Mac user once told me his idea to solve the Great Macintosh Speed Problem of 1986 (a drought which continued until 2006, I might add). His solution was brilliant in its simplicity: "Put more than one processor in the Mac! They're not that expensive! Problem solved!"

I started to tell him, as the ever-eager computer engineering student, that it wasn't that simple, but he would hear nothing of it. He had solved the problem in his mind. That's wishful thinking...a pleasant fantasy, but not one that was easily acted upon. That is not to say that dreams don't have a place; as Ben points out, these dreams (ideas) inspire us. So of course we do have multi-processing Macs now, finally...the idea never died; it just took a lot of hard work and a completely different operating system to get it right.

I'm going to postulate that a true catalyzing idea has to meet the following criteria:

• It describes a specific reaction between resources yields some desirable result that can be applied in an existing process (physical or social).
• It short-circuits our notion of how such reactions have occured in the past, creating an order-of-magnitude lead over existing methods.
• Our perception of the reaction is irreversibly altered, redefining conventional wisdom in the process.
• And the most important criterion of all: We think it's AWESOME. That's the gut-check, where our intuition comes into play.

If you have such an idea, I think you've probably got something. And that is worth crowing about to someone. You have just crafted a piece of practical magic.

If your idea falls short on any of these specifics, that's OK. Use it as your defining vision, and inspire yourself. Rest assured that plugging away at your idea will yield results, maybe not the ones you were expecting, but it may lead up to that life-changing critical insight that does pay off big. As a dance instructor once told me, the hardest part about taking dance lessons is just showing up.

If you have an idea that you think is worth something...show us. To paraphrase one of my favorite movies, "it's a moral imperative".

The Divisiveness of Ideas

One thing Ben said struck close to home: telling people about your ideas can be really scary. I think I've slowly lost my fear of that, but that is because am relatively independent and I tend to judge ideas on their own merit (I'm an INTJ/INFP, if that means anything to anyone). Unfortunately, a lot of the time people judge us by our ideas, and that can have serious repercussions in the workplace and even the home.

I'm using the term "ideas" pretty loosely here, so I will make a distinction between what we say we believe/think, what we imagine, what we plan, and what we perceive:

• What we say we believe/think -- Religion, Mac versus PC, Red States versus Blue States...you know. This isn't what I'm really talking about when I say "ideas" in this post.

• What we imagine -- This is a little closer. This is about values, dreams, and desire. It's also very private, and in a politically-charged environment these bits of information can be used against us, twisted to create a damning statement from our own words.

• What we plan -- This is more nuts and bolts; "how we will do things to achieve a certain goal". We can be judged on this too, by our bosses and coworkers, who all have their own idea of how something works. If our plan doesn't hold water, it splashes all over our chance for promotion. Bummer.

• What we perceive -- I'm a big believer in looking at things from multiple angles, because ideas often work only in a specific context; you have to be able to see the context before you can have the idea. Then the problem is explaining it to someone with a different perspective. You see this happen a lot between upper executives and floor workers: executives see a very distorted picture of how things work if they don't get out of their corner offices. Even worse, everything they say and do is magnified thousands of times beyond what it may really mean. This is a good example of 1% of what is visible is perceived as 100% of the reality, which doesn't do anyone any good in the long run. When your crazy-sounding idea comprises the bulk of that 1% to your boss, you're going to be careful about what you say.

I don't have any solutions to this, other than deciding to be a freelancer and work on my own ideas on the side. I'm incredibly grateful that this Internet thing exists for me to ramble into, but even I am nervous about what I put up here from time-to-time:

• That post I wrote about getting a manicure, for example, was predicated on the idea that "seeking any kind of experience and writing about it is good"...a strong position to take! On the other hand, I was also worried that people might think I was some kind of nancy-boy, and I'd never have another date for the rest of my life. I decided that people who thought that were probably people I wouldn't be interested in hanging out anyway, and just let it ride.

• Then there was the one about thinking negative, which I wrote when I was feeling kind of depressed. I spun out a somewhat derivative-but-authentic tale about seeing ghosts in my house, and by the end of it I actually felt much better. And. I. Posted. It. That night I couldn't sleep because I imagined losing my entire readership because This Is Not What I Signed Up For. The next day, I got some calls from my friends that were like, "Um, OK. You OK?" and Gueeessss whooooo thiiisssss issssSSSSssSS? WooOOooOOooo! But I also got some comments from people who appreciated the story, and shared some of their own experiences with me. From then on I decided that I would just post what came to me, and live with it. I don't want to live in fear of my own ideas.

So that's where I'm coming from. I'm very pro idea, but I nevertheless value them more when they're put into action or shared.

Now that I think about it, this is probably one of the main motivations for my private Freelancer/Idea Forum: it's private and optionally anonymous because I wanted to create a sanctuary where people could feel free to express their ideas. I value every idea that people post about, and I believe that everyone who's active feels the same way. Although anyone can sign up, there IS a price of admission: you must share a little bit of yourself before you're allowed to join the community; that takes some guts and motivation, and knowing that everyone in the forum has gone through that rite of passage automatically makes them one of your peers.

And with that, let a thousand ideas bloom.

Promoting Your Agenda

I just got a phone call on my biz line, which I answered with great initial enthusiasm. It was "Kathy" or "Kaitlin" asking to speak with the "Lady of the House". I informed here that there wasn't one, so she asked to speak to someone else in charge of the household. At this point I asked, "Who are you?", and she replied she was with The Dove Foundation and could she please speak with the lady of the house? I then asked with what she wanted, and she got a tad bit huffy and insisted she needed to speak with the lady of the house. I said, "Look, YOU are calling ME on my business line, and..." but didn't get farther; she spoke over me, saying "I'm sorry, thank you for your time" and hung up before I finished. I actually can't remember if she did apologize, because the tone of the voice conveyed the opposite intention, which was I've got other calls to make, you're wasting my time >CLICK<

I started preparing an informational rant against The Dove Foundation, but along the way I had an insight about a new marketing strategy that could work for me. It's not as awful as you might think.

Their Agenda

The Dove Foundation is an organization that promotes the production of "high quality, wholesome entertainment options for their families". It's a rating on top of existing industry ratings like the MPAA for movies and ESRB for games. I flipped through the listings on the website for games, but the number of reviews was rather short; it's rather telling that the first game at the top of the list is "The Bible Game". I was hoping for something more like Consumer Reports, a comprehensive rating system for all the current games, but apparently not. From their one-page public annual report, their 2005 revenues were $430K, and their major cited accomplishments were conducting opinion polls, publishing studies, conducting film festivals, and writing movie reviews.

If you do a search on google for "Dove Foundation", you get a lot of angry posts about their terrible telemarketing manner. The earliest post I saw was dated 1998, so they've been irritating people for years with their put-up or hang-up style of "outreach". So common is this irritation that they include it in their FAQ; the gist is "we don't intend to hang up on people, maybe our operator pressed a button by accident." I feel so loved. My opinion is that they're just focused on the prize: collecting data that supports their agenda. And they don't care who they irritate in the process, because if you're irritated you must not be in their demographic.

Now, there's nothing wrong with having an agenda; I just like it to be out in the open. In the marketplace of ideals, I like healthy competition through factual expression, not cooking the stats. I realize that's a blurry line to draw, but it comes into sharp focus when I see lying with partial-truths. Everyone knows this is the best way to lie. Marketing copywriters of a certain type know this, hoping that we can't smell the rat. Guys and gals...you're not fooling anyone. By coincidence, the SXSW06 podcast for Cluetrain: Seven Years Later was released today. It was one of my favorite panels at the festival, featuring Doc Searls, Heather Armstrong, Henry Copeland, and Brian Clark (Christopher Locke didn't make it). Very much worth listening too; it's all about conversation in the marketplace.

Honest conversations. Yeah.

Conversations

I don't mean to bust on marketing copywriters...just look what they have to work with! When you've got to feed mouths, turd polishing is a job you gotta do. But I was thinking: companies historically are artificial persons formed for some commercial enterprise. Extending the "person" idea, the language that copywriters are forced to use is all about saving face. Some companies are painfully aware of their drawbacks, and they've gotta hide it. And if you're trying to sell a stinker of a product with words and pictures, what recourse do you have? Even if the product is merely average, you're kind of sunk.

Freelancers face the same problem. Although I have freelanced since 1998, it's only now that I'm starting to see how some of my pieces fit together. Before that, I had the same skillset as everyone else: Flash. Director. Photoshop. Graphic Design. At least, these were the skills that people could recognize...I have always liked writing and analyzing things, but people don't like buying intangibles like that; they like stuff they can see or otherwise experience. So you're kind of doomed to compete on generic term matching ("I'm looking for a Flash guy") to get the work, wait for referrals, or hussle to get your name out there. I've been pretty bad at doing the hussle, subsisting largely on referrals. I've been inspired lately by watching My Life on the D-List and seeing how an utterly-shameless person (Kathy Griffin) gets things done, at the same time dealing with self-doubt, setbacks, and stress. I'm working my way up to that.

There isn't much difference between what I want to do and what The Dove Foundation is doing. I'm a little more selfish about it: my cause is me and the people who are important in my life who I have yet to meet. The Dove Foundation wants "wholesome family values" in the media. Maybe what's different is the approach I prefer to take.

My Agenda

Naturally, I want to portray myself in a positive light so I can have a successful life just like everyone else; that's my agenda. Two approaches come to mind:

• Show Only My Best Side -- In other words, list the good things that I've done, and trust that this makes up for everything else. It's not being dishonest, unless you're trying to cover up something. It's like the supermarket putting all the good pork chops on top of a "variety pack" of meat, obscuring the skanky cuts beneath them. Or even having a selective portfolio in the first place.

• Demonstrate All My Best Qualities -- This is the approach I think I'm taking, having decided this just now. There are things that I do well that embody important personal principles and values. I want to work with people that have the same values. Therefore, I must demonstrate my values through action and by example. So if there's something that's important to me, like Information Graphics and having a Meaningful existence, then I must live it out. Make stuff. Talk about it. Be real. Make it easy for people to see that I'm on their side. That's how my portfolio needs to be designed.

I suspect that approach #2 makes much less money in the short term (certainly, I am a datapoint supporting this theory :-) but I'm hopeful it has the longest legs. Approach #1 is about saving face, worrying about how you stack up against the competition. That's a game that works too, and it makes the world go round. Nothing wrong with that; it's just when the game is dirty that I have issues: lying through statistics, misleading people with half-truths, taking away other people's choices for your own sense of emotional security and convenience.

For me, recognizing that "living and demonstrating my principles" can work as a marketing strategy formalizes what I've been doing for the past year or so. I was into the niche of one thing, but in the abstract. Now that I've recognized this principles thing, I can identify specific ones. This just may be the next step to finding the answer, fulfillment, or something good.

Storytelling by Design

I've been pulling together my thoughts on a design approach based on the power of storytelling. While I still haven't quite figured out what it is, I have started to chain some realizations together.

The Failure of Thing-Focused Design

The failure of much design stems from the lack of engagement between creator and audience. As we creators grow more and more specialized, the tendency to describe what we are doing with precise bursts of jargon increases, balkanizing the creative landscape with specialists who spend more time talking to themselves than communicating ideas to regular people. And yet, it's the people that matter most, both in terms of social fulfilment and in revenue.

While the idea of "story" in design is not new in the context of Human-Computer Interaction, Usability, and Experience Design, I haven't yet seen a whole lot of emphasis on the quality of storytelling. The literature cites story as a way of defining a user, which is useful for workflow visualization; ironically, storytelling itself is not part of the toolkit.

Storytelling Doesn't Just Describe Relationships; It Also Creates Them!

I'm interested in a process that's more immediate and primal. I think of the "art of storytelling" (as opposed to just having a descriptive story) as a two-way modelling process. It's a more engaging way to introduce individual people to new ideas and concepts. Stories and storytelling go back to the dawn of humanity; it is arguably the way we understand the world, and it's also arguably the most compelling commonality in the development of all our media technology. Yes, specialized jargon is inevitable when discussing the inner workings of the technology amongst ourselves. However, we must recognize that the inner workings themselves are relevant only to other practitioners. What matters most to me is putting that technology in service of the storytelling; becoming a better storyteller is at the heart of being a designer with relevance in the real world. This is performance by proxy, showmanship applied with purpose. When you help someone understand new technology in the context of their understanding of the world, they can co-creation the new reality with you because they can envision their place in it. That's the power of great storytelling. Great exposition doesn't reach as far. It's just boring, which anyone who has had to read a functional spec can attest.

The difference in approach can be illustrated as follows:

• The specialist designer provides a menu of services and skills related to production, and then asks the client what they want. What format? How many colors? What's the copy? How many pages? What should it look like? And then, they produce to an evolving specification based on user modelling and iterative testing.

• The storyteller-designer, by comparison, first asks about motivation and desire, and designs for the dramatic moments. The primary goal is not to produce to a functional spec, but to create a story about the cllient, with the client in the hero-protagonist role. Only then are the production skills are applied to create causal elements in the real world. The difference is that the story doesn't remain a fiction; when executed well, the story makes the client's reality. And if all goes well, the story takes on a life of its own.

I believe the concept of the storyteller-designer is what I'm actually moving toward. It focuses not on process and technology, but on creating events placed in a meaningful human context. And that's where all the action is, IMHO.

Mind you, I am not saying that Usability is useless. However, "user models" and "archetypes" are mere descriptive anchors; the role of "story" in the context of Usability is to package user behaviors into a concise blueprint useful for general systems modelling. The flow of information is one-way: behavior is observed, iterated upon, and re-observed. While the users are involved in the process as the "target" audience, they are more like statistical parameters in the system design. That's fine, and that's not what I'm talking about.

The approach of Storytelling by Design, as I'm trying define it, is about interfacing with clients using an approach that emphasizes story as the primary unit of understanding, as opposed to "pages", "Flash", "PHP", "look and feel" and "rounds of revision". You can also think of it as "speaking the language of the client" taken a little farther; using storytelling techniques in client communication to create engagement and understanding of the creative process. It's also a given that storytelling is the focus of the creative work; this is well understood in any customer-facing endeavor that's intended to be viewed by actual people (e.g. Advertising)

Later this week I'll talk a bit more about how the process of practicing "Storytelling by Design" works.

UPDATE: I just found this article that talks about something very similar! So I'm not alone in this :-)

Related Posts

• Story-based Design is the first attempt I made to clarify what I was trying to do.

• Story-based Design II is a first exploration to distinguish between what I'm doing and the already-entrenched usage in Usability / Experience Design.

• Story-based Design III: Shakers and Objects describes a related insight about "objects looking like objects, as opposed to like people".

• Story-based Design IV: When it Breaks describes a situation where maybe you shouldn't tell the story.

• Storytelling versus Co-Creation of Story describes "branded entertainment" and my reaction to the idea. I realize then that it's not so much the storytelling that I'm trying to define, but the style of client interaction I'm trying to achieve.

• Topic home is http://davidseah.com/storytelling-by-design

Obsessing over Lost Ideas

I tend to have a lot of ideas, which is a kind way of saying that I'm easily distracted. The way I control this impulse is by recognizing that most ideas aren't worth much without the solid execution to bring them into reality. So when I talk to someone about an idea, I will assess our ability to work together with a set of rules like this:

• Do we have the skills?
• Do we have the time?
• Do we have the resources?
• Do we have the chemistry?
• Do we really have the motivation?

It's amazing how many ideas don't make the cut, if you're being truly honest. In a lot of cases, I'll do something because I'm actually not sure...in the process of doing, I'll find out. Of course, I have to disclose this fully to any involved parties, because otherwise the second battery of tests will fail:

• Are we maintaining momentum?
• Are we setting our expectations correctly?
• Was our initial assessment accurate?
• Do we keep going?

Not many personal projects make it past the second battery either, at least in my limited experience. That's why if you ever find someone to team up with that can repeatedly pass this test, you should make every effort to work together. You have found something magical.

But I digress. I just realized that though I can keep my distractions from turning into failed projects, I am absolutely obsessive about documenting them. Witness this blog. And this obsession is actually driven by fear.

I have a terrible memory, or so I think. I remember being commanded to memorize and repeat phrases on the spot in French class, and not being able to do it to great personal embarassment. I also hate losing information, or feeling stuck because I am lacking some critical piece of information that could solve some workplace conundrum. And it's probably related overall to a fear of not being competent. So I work really hard at being competent, and I suppose I have succeeded in certain respects. But the fear is still very much there, lurking deep in the shadows.

How does this relate to the documenting of every idea that I have? Well, I'm not really sure. It may be that for all the noise I make about ideas being worthless by themselves, it happens to be one of the things that I truly enjoy and am actually good at. So the upshot is: I'm really good at doing something that I know is worthless without execution behind it. Sheesh...I didn't see that coming! By documenting them, perhaps I am attempting to generate some kind of value from them. At least when they're written down, other people can benefit, and therefore attribute some kind of value to me.

So facing up to myself, I'm recognize I am being silly. Let me work this out:

• First of all, if I'm so good at generating new ideas, then I will never lack for them. Ever. So starting now, I'm going to stop obsessing about remembering them (which I suck at anyway) and focus on generating new ones. That's not to say that I'll stop blogging them; I will just not run to the computer to write them down and get caught up in it every time a thought crosses my mind. This should have an effect on my personal productivity.

• Secondly, I should worry about the ideas that do make it past the two filters, because those are the ones that matter in terms of executability. And that means the creation of tangible, life-sustaining assets.

• Thirdly, my core business might actually be packaging ideas for consumption. Content creation, in other words. I have a nice skill set for doing that: design, development, writing and all that related stuff. It's not experience design or graphic design, or storytelling/journalism in itself.

• Fourthly, the ability to generate and package ideas very cheaply (in terms of mental energy) is a competitive advantage, in some business circles. Identifying what businesses those are will be an interesting challenge.

I'm pretty confident that everyone has some kind of trait like this; it's just difficult to see it from your own perspective. For some reason taking showers seems to trigger these insights, and since I've been taking a lot of showers lately as I try this polyphasic sleep schedule out, I guess it's my own darn fault. :-)

Story-Based Design II

In the last thread, Tim Beadle wrote:

I may be missing something (and I am in no way an expert!), but isn’t story-based design the same as persona-based design?

I realize there's a namespace collision here, and I'm glad Tim bring it up. There's a distinction I'm trying to make between the "usability" notion of story-based design and what I'm trying to define. The distinction lies with how I think of the application of story to design.

One thing that bugs me slightly about "usability" (and I admittedly have not worked directly with many experts or professional firms) is that the approach is rather depersonalized and dry. For all the talk of "story" and "personas", reaching as far back as the early 90s...there just hasn't been much passion in them. If I were to describe the stereotypical "usability expert", I think of an insightful, quiet person with the uncanny ability to make perpective-shaking adjustments in a product or process by asking a simple question: "how do people really interact?" And then they would produce a wonderfully-written document that states the newfound principles of design with such clarity that it takes my breath away. My eyes would widen in appreciation of the accompanying diagrams, visually designed with such power that I can't help but absorb the concepts I had just read about. I immediately put it up on my wall, circling one particularly-glorious info-blob and writing YES!!! next to it in bold red Sharpie.

Then I go have lunch, and forget about it.

The usability expert wonders what the hell happened, but as a consultant he's already on to the next gig, hoping that maybe his ground-breaking insights will actually take root in more fertile soil. The problem is that for all the work that went into clarifying those important, business-altering insights, the expert has failed to engage us. In the worst case scenario, the usability expert becomes a prophet, crying out warnings of the Coming Infocalypse that is already upon us, Web 2.0 methodologies already dangerously swaying out of control. But no one cares, because the prophet is still making the mistake of addressing people in the abstract, as personas. They're not engaging me or my reality as an individual. They're talking about someone like me, but not me. There is no feeling of personal relationship, and I think that's pretty important.

Let's look at this another way: you've written some kick-ass user stories for your software product! High five, guys! With these documents, the development process finally has real focus and guidance. In fact, these user stories are SO GOOD that you're submitting them as-is to a number of literary short story competitions!

Oh wait...they're not that good, at least not in that way. If I were to take off my usability goggles, in what way are these personas useful outside the context of software development?

Stories go far beyond software development and is at the crux of several trends I've been watching: Kathy Sierra's Creating Passionate Users, Joel Spolsky's Best of Software Writing, Donald Norman's Emotional Design, the Experience Design movement, even online comics, the Clue Train and leadership... all of these center around story, emotion, heroism, and visualization. Story is a lot more than just personas and models. Stories are what motivate and connect people with action, set examples to follow, and are most importantly personally relevant.

That is what I am interested in. I think it's a given that passionate users are empowered users. What I want to figure out is how to be a passionate creator, and how to leverage my newly rediscovered passions for writing, teaching, and community building in a way that is approachable by people who intuitively understand this, but can't quite put it yet into words. "Story Based Design" isn't the phrase...it's something else.

More in this series:

• Storytelling By Design Master Page

Story-Based Design

I've been mulling over the idea of story-based design as a way to describe my design process. What I'm interested in is finding and telling stories that are engaging, uplifting, helpful, and inspiring. I can't design anything until I can find that angle. To me, design is all about communicating that message through whatever media I can get my hands on.

I think there's a similarity between what I'm doing with Experience Design, a growing multidisciplinary subset of graphic design. However, a lot of the materials I see on this are less than inspiring. Take this copy, for example, from the AIGA Experience Design page:

What is experience design?

Experience design strives to create experiences beyond products and services. Its boundaries extend beyond traditional design.

The prose sounds very clear and insightful, but ironically none of it provides any meaningful experience that I can latch on to. Where's the relevance to me? Where's the story? The words are nicely crafted and fit together; any respectable design agency would be proud to have copy like that on their "Our Process" page. What's missing is a sense of engagement.

The "story-based design" term is also referenced in a few online articles related to usability and human-centered design practice, but this isn't what I'm talking about either. I can appreciate the value of such practice, and I recognize the importance of focusing on the (duh) user when you're making things for them. What's most important, though, is imparting the sense that you're doing it for them, not around them. That is a critical distinction. It's nice to know that someone's doing something to make your work more productive, but really...I want to feel that sense of rapport as well.

The name "story based design" sounds very clunky to me, so it's just a working title for a philosophy-under-development (PUD). So far, there are four steps:

1. Get to know a person and his/her world.
2. Tell that person how he/she is relevant to the world.
3. Create a story about that person.
4. Tell the story to the audience that wants to hear it

I'm not naturally a visual person; before I can lay pixels down, I have to have a pretty clear idea of what is being said, why, and how. Essentially, I compose an essay or a story in my head first. I often write my thoughts down too. This becomes the script for the visual design, when I draw upon my associative memory to pick what audiovisual elements will communicate in the best way. Laying out a page for me is like directing a short film. I know I can control the order of how people look on things on the page through composition and contrast, which gives me tremendous expressive power.

It's not exactly an artistic process, but it's one that I'm realizing is just as valid. Many designers I talk to are far more talented in the visual realm than I; I'm primarily a word person that just happens to like graphics and programming, and in the past I've thought I was somehow not "doing it right". I no longer believe that's the case, so here I am making up new terminology again :-)

More in this series:

• Storytelling By Design Master Page

The Fundamentals

I just read Kathy Sierra's latest post Don't Forget Square One which is a very fine reminder. Go read the article, and then ask yourself, "Hey, self! Do I even know what my fundamentals are?".

I thought I did, but in hindsight I don't think I really do. Like a lot of people I'm in that odd zone of mediocrity. I don't say that as a self put-down, mind you. With the finish of the Olympics recently, this is a particularly appropriate observation to make. If my professional activities were sports, do I know what would make me an Olympic-caliber designer / developer? I could imagine the trappings surrounding it, but not the minute details that eke out that 1/100th of a second difference between silver and gold.

Ordinarily I would write what I think those minute details are, but I have to get ready for SXSW and I'm flippin' out finishing some project work, packing, anwering last-minute emails, and backing up all my data. Erk! See what I'm talking about? Not smooth! I'll never get to endorse anything at this rate!

In the meantime, read Kathy Sierra's post How to Be an Expert. This might be a good break the ice, a lot question at SXSW..."So, what are the fundamental habits of our respective field?"

On a side note, I'm looking forward to Kathy Sierra's presence at SXSW; she is one of the most optimistic and insightful writers I've ever come across. I am just awestruck. I am hoping that her session attracts a lot of passionate creators...the energy would be incredible.

New Media Group Manifesto

Our New Media User Group turned 1 year old in February, and in that year it's grown far beyond my initial expectations. We're still tiny, of course, but I've learned a lot about how to start a group up. It's a lot easier than I thought, so if any of you out there are going through the I wish there was a group of people I could hang out with, take heart! It is doable!

The first step was to realize what it is I wanted from a group: an experience that felt like the kind of gathering I would like. While the group's actual membership has grown more diverse, I find that our core values have remained largely unchanged. I just wrote the following on our group Basecamp welcome page:

So how do you know you belong in the New Media Group?

You want to share stories about your work and life experiences with a group of interested and diverse people. Although we started with art and interactive media as a base, our discussions include technology and other professional practice. If you enjoy learning, you’ll fit right in no matter what your background.

You are seeking other creative people who are passionate about something, in a supportive environment. We do our best to avoid the “uh, I don’t know anyone here, and everyone already knows each other” effect.

You are not interested in traditional “business networking”. When we’re at the table, the talk is about what we do. Bring us your story, not your resume! Of course, after you get to know people, business tends to happen naturally :)

This has been, I think, the base of what makes the group comfortable for me. And since I say it up front, the people who show up tend to also be comfortable with it. It creates a sort of inner harmony.

If you're interested in trying this yourself, come up with your own list of "important things". You get to design the group! As the organizer, though, you need to consider these other factors:

• You have to be truly interested in communicating what's going on to your group membership. I don't think of myself as an organizer. Instead, I consider my role to be host of an ongoing party. I want to make sure that people are introduced to each other properly, know about what's going on, and feel right at home. As the group has matured, other people have naturally taken over some hosting duties too, and the result is a good group energy. So if you like throwing parties and inviting friends over, this is an approach that could work for you. And remember...you can dictate the kind of party you are throwing. That's basically all I'm doing. Organizationally, there's all the pre-party stuff that you do, and also the post-party storytelling. You want people to come to your next party? Let them know what they missed!

  I have had to put quite a bit of time into communication (the project management side of me finally pays off). The main tools I use are mailing list software (with email addresses scrubbed), our group wiki, and a laptop to keep notes during meetings. I also post fairly regularly and try to have a call to gather every 2-3 weeks. I post the after-meeting notes as often as I can, so people know what we talked about, and archive them on the Wiki. I'm giving Basecamp a try too, so we can have a more private discussion area than the mailing list (I am sensitive to spammers harvesting our addresses).

• Meeting strangers. That was a lot less frightening than I thought because of a lucky accident---I had to meet people one-on-one first because of scheduling. In the 1-on-1 scenario, I just talked about what I was interested in and asked what they were interested in. I asked them about their backgrounds, what their dreams were, how they got to be a designer/artist/etc. And that was enough. By the time we actually met in a group, I could effectively play the host role because I knew who they were. It also helps to know that if someone has responded to your call for action, they are already interested in meeting you. So don't feel awkward. Just ask questions and share some stories about yourself. That's all people are looking for.

• Getting people to come. This is the one that a lot of user groups thrash around with, and they often feel that they need a "headliner" to get people out of their houses. Our group is a little different because the draw is "hosted conversation", and for whatever reason people understood that. It's not really targeted at the general population, but then again what is important to me is making good quality contacts, not size. And I'd say that in that regard it's been successful.

  Promotion I haven't worried about yet; we've grown organically through personal introductions. I'm considering bookstore cafe bulletin boards, Craig's List, Upcoming.org, and direct contact with companies to see what interest there is. For now, I have my hands full enough.

I haven't actually ended up meeting many more new media designers, which was my original motivation. Instead, I've made a lot of friends and met people who I otherwise might not have, and this has energized and enriched my own sense of purpose. And it just started with a couple of people I had never met before.

Anyone else have some user group tips or stories to share? Please post a comment! :-)

Decoupling My Assumptions

I was reflecting about the amount of work I have coming in the days ahead, and had a minor brainstorm. The coming work is cool and I am jazzed about starting! However, I found myself going through a familiar train of thought:

It's going to be a lot of work, and the rewards will be delayed; I hope the work is worth it.

I felt a little of the energy ooze out of my step. Why was that?

Well, it's understandable...work is work, and takes away from the "fun" things I might otherwise be doing. I've been trying to get my work and my fun to be the same thing, and that's been about 20% successful. The other 80% of the time I'm thinking of other things that I could be doing, and use think of the completion of the project as the reward. Yay!

On the other hand, spending most of my time thinking about how I'd rather be doing something else...that blows. It then occured to me that decoupling work from reward was a mental strategy with potential productivity benefits.

Codependent Expectations

There is the tendency to expect a reward from work, and this expectation is what's causing my negative thinking. Had Kindergarten, with its clever cupcake-based reward system, been the first phase of an institutionalized program of conditioning to mold my generation into willing laborers for the societal machine? Maybe not intentionally, but let's think about that.

Consider this statement:

Work should be followed by Reward.

I automatically agree with it. It's a fundamental assumption that's been ingrained into me from an early age. "If you work hard", we're told, "you will be rewarded." As we grow older, it becomes a feeling of entitlement. The statement, in our minds, becomes "Work is followed by Reward." This is a limiting attitude to have, unless you happen to be in an environment where that's what you do to make a living. However, outside of the contrived environment of school, home, and office, it's not guaranteed.

I'm going to decouple "work" from "reward" from now on, because if I justify the work in terms of the reward, that is a form of codependency. It all started so innocently with those cupcakes; I'm shocked how deeply ingrained this expectation is in my psyche.

Applying this back to my project situation:

• There's work.
• There's reward.
• There's satisfaction.

These are all related, but it would be ideal if I think of them as independent factors in my life. In other words, when I work, I shouldn't automatically expect reward as my self-appointed metric for success. I should look instead at what I accomplished, and see where it fits into my overall personal plan. The reward is the accomplishment, not the present I buy in "recognition" of how hard I worked. This is an essential attitude to have as an entrepreneur/freelancer. I occassionally meet "fresh from the cube farm" freelancers that are filled with moral outrage because their prospective clients didn't recognize the hours they've "put into" the project as having monetary value. That's because you haven't generated value, guys...you've just burned some hours. It's an entirely different game! Having something of value to the client is leverage you can count on. The expectation that someone will automatically reward you when you waggle your mouse is not.

Just to be clear, rewards do have their place, but I would cast them as genuine acknowledgement of services performed. Harder said than done, on both the rewarder's and receiver's side; usually they are seen as perks or automatic benefits that lack real emotional value.

Other Decouplets

The reason I even thought of decoupling work from reward was because I've done it with other assumptions. Here's some of the ones that come to mind:

Need for verification implies lack of trust

Nope, not necessarily! A lot of people really believe, at the time of making a promise, that they will actually follow through. We also know through experience that, on average, people have a less-than-perfect record at keeping them. I think it was Richard M. Nixon that said that while he could believe that someone had a genuine intention at the negotiating table; he could also believe that the person wouldn't be able to deliver for any number of reasons. This isn't purposeful deceit...it's just that some people can't follow through as much as they really truly intend to.

Many people think the two concepts are inextricably linked, and that if you don't believe one you must not believe the other. This isn't necessarily the case. When a 6-year old child enthusiastically makes a public promise, we think it's adorable but we don't necessarily count on it happening. Should the promise come in danger of not being fulfilled, that's when we step in to help the child carry through to completion (hopefully in a way that's empowering). It's not that much different with other adults who are distracted, stressed, overworked, or doing something for the first time...they may not be able to deliver on their promise despite their honest desire to. "Trust but verify" isn't negative unless you really lack trust. It may be prudent to just whisper "but verify" to yourself in polite company :-)

Lack of immediate affirmation means you disagree

This isn't always true, unless you're in a passive-aggressive meeting. People often assume that if you don't affirm what they're saying, that must mean you disagree with them. I get stuck in meetings all the time where people go back and forth about some issue that they really do agree on; they're just talking about different aspects of the same thing. A skilled mediator will recognize that the "disagreement" is really a manifestation of one of the following:

• Someone wants acknowledgement that what they're saying is important to them. They seek affirmation that their input is valued, have said something of usefulness, and that it will be taken into consideration. Note it, move on, followthrough later with the stakeholders: "That's an excellent point; let me write that down on the whiteboard so we can come back to it when we're finished discussing this particular piece."

• Someone is raising an additional complication that needs to be taken into consideration, but it doesn't invalidate the entire point of view. Much agony can be avoided by prefacing the statement with "I agree; here's something else though that we need to consider..."

• Two parties have different working perspectives of the same thing, but are using confusing jargon to express their ideas. The result is that neither party makes sense to the other. You see this happen between management, executives, designers, and programmers; they all have different ways of looking at a problem, with goals that make sense only within their job context.

Of course, sometimes people really are disagreeing :-) This is tricky to resolve unless you can use a common external focal point as a metric. Someone outside of the group, preferably. This can be the end-user, the client, or the audience. For example, does having a "well-normalized database" really matter to the end user as much as the database admin? Ask the database admin what it ultimately does for the end-user, and figure it out together.

You're not with us, therefore you're against us

A pretty common attitude, because we're sometimes fearful and don't even know it. People sometimes assume that if you're not in agreement, you must be the enemy. Cliques form for the sense of mutual affirmation, so if you're not affirming the values of the group, you are by definition not part of it. I think that's unfortunate, but it's pretty common.

It even strikes with people you may already know well, especially when the issue is related to something socially controversial. For example, a couple years ago I took a class to learn how to shoot a handgun, and found that I liked it. I mentioned this to a few friends, and the reaction was interesting; the automatic response was guns are used only by criminals and crazy people, that somehow I had become part of that group. Yet they knew I *wasn't. I've had a lot of interesting discussions based on this experience, figuring out what we knew and what biases, if any, existed in our beliefs about guns, gun control, the Constitution, and self-defense. What usually happens is that we come to an agreement to disagree, while acknowledging the other's perspective. We've learned something about our own ignorance, and we are the better for it. It's worthwhile to note that the only reason that the conflict was resolved was because of emotional conflict: loathing/fear versus friendship, and rational discourse followed to resolve it. With a stranger, however, I probably would not have gotten the chance to discuss these issues should it come out in casual conversation; loathing/fear would have a much greater chance of winning out in the absense of other context.

We both are agreeing, therefore we understand each other

Until you've worked together, this isn't necessarily true. Agreement is to intention as understanding is to action. In other words, the act of creating /sharing something tangible will confirm that you really did understand each other; I would never assume otherwise. A better way of phrasing this would be "we agree to develop a working understanding of each other". That is, perhaps, the foundation of true friendship; acceptance of the working differences is what makes it last.

In Summary

From the productivity perspective, I'm going to try to think of work as separate from reward. In fact I don't even want to think of reward as the motivator (you know, as in cupcakes). Instead, I want to think of the work itself producing something of long term value. This is one of the tricks of The Printable CEO: by scoring only thing you can see and touch, you create long-term value. The points are just a way of measuring relative effectiveness on a week-by-week basis.

The points could be used to determine a level of reward...in this case I think that's OK because the points are tied to tangible accomplishment. That is, if your point value list has retained focus on producing tangible things; if not, then you probably should have another look at it.