Fragments of Ricocheting Thoughts

I am Tony Chu, MFA Interaction Design student at SVA. These are my thoughts - well, fragments of them.
For my portfolio visit tonyhschu.ca.

Intolerance for ugliness is not in itself enough. You have to understand a field well before you develop a good nose for what needs fixing. You have to do your homework. But as you become expert in a field, you’ll start to hear little voices saying, What a hack! There must be a better way. Don’t ignore those voices. Cultivate them. The recipe for great work is: very exacting taste, plus the ability to gratify it.

Taste for Makers - Paul Graham

“plus the ability to gratify it,” if only more people had that ability, the world would improve faster.

Close Your Loops!

Which is to say: the loops are left open. The reading-enjoying-sharing-engaging-reading loop can’t be closed when your platform doesn’t have universally, publicly accessible points.[3] And right now, those points — to be truly universally accessible and pointable — need to be web based. It’s our lowest common denominator of pointability.

So that feeling: if a text isn’t online, then it doesn’t exist. This needs a little amendment: If a text isn’t online and publicly pointable, then it doesn’t exist.

If you want an idea to spread, give it an address. The addressability of a permalink closes the viral loop. (via @craigmod)

1 day ago -

T-55: Pick Yourself

Part of the MFA Interaction Design Weekly Thesis Blog series - 10 of 64

“Pick Yourself” was the theme of Seth Godin’s all day seminar last Wednesday, which I had the privilege to attend because I was a student volunteer. It echoed many of the themes of last semester’s entrepreneurial design class, with a slightly more personal twist.

Seth’s premise is similar to Gary and Christina’s; the world is changing from an industrial based economy to a networked based economy. The nature of scale is changing, and the barriers to making a dent in the world is lowering. Power of the traditional gatekeepers are growing weaker.  Therefore, don’t wait for a gatekeeper to give your permission, don’t clamour for a kingmaker to crown you. Pick yourself.

Pick yourself

From here, Gary and Christina asked us to think entrepreneurially. That involves running experiments, proving out ideas, and putting yourself out there.  At “Pick Yourself” Seth focused more on the psychology of getting started, and the power of a compelling story in a connection-based world.  Here are my big take aways from Seth’s seminar.

Confront the Lizard Brain

Seth referred to the pitfalls of our lizard brain, that part of our brain that whispers our doubts and fears. Humming and hahing and delaying decisions using seemingly rational excuses. We fight back by asking the obligating question. Is there an objection which, when answered, will compel you to actually start working? Or will you simply find another objection to hang on to? The obligating question clarifies whether we have legitimate concerns, or whether we are simply fearful. Seth emphasized that it is ok to fear, but we ought to recognize it, and evaluate it clearly. Mistaking fear for rationality won’t do.

Be Un-well-rounded

With the internet, you can broadcast to almost the entire world. To get your idea off the ground though, you only need the support of a small group. You do, however, need their fervent support. That requires a compelling, outstanding and genuine story. Your story must bring together a dedicated following - what Seth refers to as your tribe. The idea therefore is to be yourself; the most outstanding, undeniable version of yourself that brings together your tribe, even if it repeals some others. After all, you don’t need the world to love you to succeed.

Reflections

With regards to “Be Un-well-rounded” he’s essentially advocating for us to become the embodiment of the ideal we are most passionate about. Seth laid out a very convincing case for why that is powerful in a networked world, and Seth himself is a testimony of the power of that approach. Nonetheless I think it requires a level of dedication and sacrifice that is extraordinary, and shouldn’t be taken on lightly. I am not sure it works for everyone.

The idea of confronting the lizard brain and picking yourself, however, I find very appealing. It gets at in a much clearer way what I want to advocate in my thesis proposal - that everyone ought to take responsibility for their own lives, no matter the circumstance. Our new tools and networks are making this easier everyday, and we have fewer and fewer excuses not to pick ourselves.

Post script

This reminds me of a blogpost I have yet to write. A friend challenged this idea that “everyone should take responsibility for their own lives, no matter the circumstance” as being a very privileged point of view. I wanted to argue, but I had no good answers for that one.  I still don’t, because I know that I am indeed very privileged.

Not sure what to think about it yet. What do you think?

All kinds of amazing. Insightful thinking, simple visualization.

(Source: seebytouch, via sarzha)

THOMPSON: But you think Silicon Valley is screwed, whether Facebook lives up to that valuation or not. Why?
BLANK: I teach science and engineering. I see my students trying to commercialize really hard stuff. But the VCs are only going to be interested in chasing the billions on their smart phones. Thank God we have small business research grants from the federal government, otherwise the Chinese would just grab them.
THOMPSON: But there are some people doing interesting, daring things, like Vinod Khosla.
BLANK: He is. But think about this. The four most interesting projects in the last five years are Tesla, SpaceX, Google Driving, and Google Goggles. That is one individual, Elon Musk, and one company, Google, doing all four things that are truly Silicon Valley-class disruptive.

The best framing of “when to pivot” I’ve heard yet, from David Binetti of Votizen.

Surveys, A/B testing, landing pages, etc. are all good ways to find a local maximum for a given set of assumptions (i.e. you current business model)

If you’ve hit that local max and your model still isn’t a sustainable business, it’s time to restate your assumptions (i.e. to pivot)

Note the difference between incremental improvement and radical change. We can test our way to incremental improvement and optimization, and find a local maxima. Unfortunately, incremental iteration is not guaranteed to find a global maxima. Iterating myopically might get you stuck at the top of a short hill.

Pivoting is finding a new hill, which you can only find when you zoom out, think holistically, and survey the landscape broadly.

In each case, we have resources that were once dedicated to advertising instead being used to enhance a customer’s experience, and proving far more beneficial both to the customer and the business. Traditional advertising grew up in an industrial age world dominated by mass-manufacture and products. As we shift into a connected age built on services and customer relationships, savvy businesses are those that recognize money is best spent not cramming messages down people’s throats, but tirelessly figuring out how to enhance the service experience.

Why UX is better marketing than marketing (via Findings.com)

T-56: GitLaw

Part of the MFA Interaction Design Weekly Thesis Blog series - 9 of 64

A few days ago a blogpost proposing a git style platform for legal documents hit the front page of Hacker News, and generated quite a bit of discussion. Several friends who have heard about my thesis idea forwarded it to me. My thesis proposal for a digital, participatory repository for legal code is not a new idea; people have been thinking about trying to increase accessibility and transparency in the legislative domain for a while. Quite a few programming-minded people have hit upon these ideas about version control before, and that blogpost gathered a treasure trove of perspectives for me.

It’s worth highlighting some of the push back on Hacker News.

  • Who is allowed to “patch” laws, in a GIT metaphor? You can’t actually take the metaphor of contributing to laws that far, because the process of putting laws on the book is much, much more time consuming than deploying software. The feedback cycles are inherently long and difficult. The access to the raw legal “code” is exclusive and limited.

  • Git is a completely different mental model than how legislators usually go about thinking about law. It is exceedingly difficult to change the mental models of these legislators.

  • A merely superior process doesn’t overcome bureaucratic inertia. There are vested interests in keeping the status quo.

  • A GitLaw is a technical solution to a people problem. Bad laws get passed not because the tools are inadequate, but because some people want those laws to pass.

The discussion has been helpful in thinking through my thesis.  It is clear that the tool can’t focus on changing how laws get made. I am not sure law makers want better tools, since so much of the power structure in Washington is built around its dysfunction.

Who might want better tools? Researchers, who analyse and scrutinize bills as they go through congress, and writers, who work to get policy issues into the public consciousness.  These people need tools to make analyzing and publicizing legal proceedings easier.  My hunch is that tools we need are not about changing the mechanics of how laws are written, but about changing how legislative issues are discussed.

This blog post makes me wonder if GitLaw is the right metaphor.  Maybe it should be a Reddit for law, which aggregates ideas and directs attention. Maybe it should be a Youtube for law, which allows people embed legal code so to respond to it, while referencing a central source.

What might be the right metaphor?

(Source: news.ycombinator.com)

Maybe your company shouldn’t scale.

Maybe you shouldn’t focus on making things that are different, new, novel, disruptive, and with broad appeal. Maybe, instead, your company should try to be appropriate, simple, quiet, useful, and focused.

A Focus on Scale | Austin Center for Design (via Findings.com)

Questioning the metrics of success. Do success require scale? What does scale burden you with?

But because they never really take the leap and quit their job, they can give up their dream at any time. And 99.9 percent of them will actually give up their dream. If they take the leap, quit their job, go do it full-time-no matter how much it sucks-and convince one other person to do the same thing with them, they’re going to have a much, much higher chance of actually getting somewhere.

Founders at Work: Stories of Startups’ Early Days by Jessica Livingston (via Findings.com)