Between 2009 and 2010, Limina worked with a brilliant group of scientists and software engineers at Molecular Devices on their next generation digital microscopy software.  After a thorough review of their existing product, and some contextual reviews of the software in use, Limina conducted the following:

• Cognitive Walk-through
• Expert UI Evaluation (Analysis and Recommendations)
• Alternative Interaction Models
• Workflows, Storyboards and Wireframes
• Usability Testing
• UI Designs and Custom Iconography.

You can see some examples of our work here, but the video, with our client emphasizing the value of enhanced User Experience is the real success story.

-Jon

Being a virtual company has it’s challenges – communicating, planning, collaborating, tracking, managing and delivering have many potential pitfalls.  We wanted to take a moment to highlight some products that have been helping us to drive more efficiency in our virtual structure.

In recent months, Limina has been picking up the pace in collaborating with UX personnel in the field and delivering our services.  This has been, in no small part, due to our use of collab-ware.  We’ve recently migrated our intranet, client extranets and project collaboration space to OneHub workspaces.   For the past 5 years, we’ve been  using GoToMeeting to facilitate our internal project checkpoints, along with a host of user research activities and client presentations.  And we’ve recently started using ClickTime as our user friendly time reporting product.

Other enablers we’re tinkering with in our lab include: Pidoco, iRise,and iMockups, to name a few. Add into the mix Skype, GoogleDocs, chat and mail clients and you’re well on your way!

We just thought we’d give a shout out to technology products that’ve been making deploying our user centered research and design services  not only more efficient for a decentralized UX practice, but fun and easy!  Our clients and field agents love how we’ve brought these products into our process and service delivery suite.  And we couldn’t think of any better way to say: “We <3 These Great Products!”

-Jon

We’ve been tracking this story for about a week now – trying to see where things would end up. Here’s just a brief overview an analysis, along with some interesting links on what you might have missed.

On October 5th,  2010 – GAP, inc.  quietly swapped out their logo on their website (soft launch) without warning or announcement.

On October 6th, 2010 -  UnderConsideration posted an article “Don’t Mind the Gap, or the Square” where they provided a little background on the company, the history of the logo and some initial reactions to the new logo.

Gap’s Facebook Page starts getting customer comments on the new look… and Gap responds:

Thanks for everyone’s input on the new logo! We’ve had the same logo for 20+ years, and this is just one of the things we’re changing. We know this logo created a lot of buzz and we’re thrilled to see passionate debates unfolding! So much so we’re asking you to share your designs. We love our version, but we’d like to see other ideas. Stay tuned for details in the next few days on this crowd sourcing project.
— Gap’s Facebook status update

October 7th, 2010 – idsng.org posts a roll-up of reactions to the new logo and Gap’s plans to crowd-source, or not.

October 8th, 2010 -  UnderConsideration pulls together the Mother-load post “Followup: Gap Gate” – demonstrating that gap consumers, designers, bloggers and the social web weren’t going to swallow the new logo and were ready to poke fun and actually compete for the title of “I designed the new Gap logo”

The Gapify Tumblr demonstrated how asinine the design decisions were and how applying them completely oversimplify and disregarded the key brand identity in any logo.

And my personal favorite CrapLogo.Me took a more in-your-face approach to describe how they feel about the new logo by creating a Gap logo meme.

By far the most controversial of reactions (see below)  is Gap’s marketing pivot – “Let’s crowd source the logo design” which spurs into motion a $500 logo design competition by 99 Designs.  The competition rang in a healthy 4660 entries – which spanned  wide range of humorous satirical design to some legitimate attempts to resolve the company’s desire to move their brand forward.  While this competition is not officially sponsored by Gap, we’re awaiting to learn the outcome of the, now closed, competition and what 99 Designs intends to do with the winning design.  (UPDATE 10.18.10 – below)

Post-post Analysis Post: Everyone is all excited about crowd-sourcing design..  aren’t they?  Wait…  not everyone.  Crowd-sourcing has done wonders for open technology platforms like Drupal and Jquery and opened content platforms like Wikipedia,  but is it right for design?  The main complaint to the world of crowd sourced design is that it appeals to the bottom feeder in design consumers and the desperation of a struggling designer which has a downward spiraling effect on the design market.   Mike Monteiro from Mule Design sums it up in his “Gap, I have your new logo” post from Off the Hoof.  Another jab at 99 Designs and Crowd sourced design at BonFX.

Oct 11, 2010 – Gap Inc. Issues an official press release- “Gap Listens to Customers and Will Keep the Classic Blue Box Logo”

Oct, 11, 2010 – AP Marketing Writer, Emily Fredrix,  picks up the story and posts:  Gap’s logo back to blue after fans gripe about new – now headlining on Yahoo.com Oct.12, 2010.

Oct 12, 2010 – Richard Grefé, Executive Director of AIGA| the professional association for design, (re) posts his position on Spec work with a letter sent to the Gap on October 7th.

If you want quality, if you have respect for the design process (research, conceptualization, design, testing), along with an ounce of self respect – you’ll pay the designer the true value of the labor and the product.

Why does Limina care about this?  Our customers are primarily software, web-app and website design oriented, looking for ways to improve the user experience.  While this resides heavily in user research and user centered design, it often touches and occasionally includes heavy consideration for brand identity.  We don’t take the subject lightly – use acceptance can make or break a product.  As we’ve seen with Tropicana and now with Gap – this level of market rejection can be costly – fortunately for Gap they didn’t roll out the new design across all of the product lines, stores, packaging, bags and collateral.

UPDATE 10.17.10 – Things just went from bad to worse.  99Designs sent out a blast to the community to participate in “voting” for the best Gap logo design.  It’s as if the 99Designs crew got cold feet  in fear of a backlash from the design community if they picked a weak design.  So they’re throwing it back at the crowd.  “Here…  you guys sort out this mess”.

-Jon Fukuda

It’s clear that the digitization of the Book has opened great possibilities for changing the way we consume, contextualize and engage in literature. Below is a post I found on Core 77  which shares IDEO’s exploration of various ux themes and concepts for interacting with digital books.

(Reblog)

IDEO released a five-minute video exploring the future of digital books. Their illustrated concepts highlight some interesting opportunity areas in the publishing industry through three distinct reading experiences:

Nelson reinforces books as critical thinking tools, providing multiple perspectives, references, and current conversations on a single subject. The layers of information beyond the book itself provide greater context and encourages a deeper dive into the book throughout history and into the future.

The Future of the Book. from IDEO on Vimeo.

Coupland addresses the challenge to stay on top of the thinking and writing in our world and professional field that so many of us feel. Readers can easily keep up with “must-reads” by following what colleagues are reading and interact with them through “book clubs” and other social layers (discussions, suggestions, lists, purchases) to help each other share and learn.

Alice explores new ways for users to interact and affect written narratives by introducing non-linear and game mechanics to reading. By introducing the reader’s active participation, this concept “blurs the lines between reality and fiction.” Certain interactions allow the reader to transcend traditional media by utilizing geographic location, communication with characters, and user contribution to storyline and plot.

A very cool blue sky project from IDEO to say the least. I enjoyed the way they chose to compartmentalize the functionality rather than attempting to redefine the book in a single all-inclusive interface (a failure we see in most of these concept projects). This project, and examples appearing all over the industry, only further prove that the future of books in the digital age does not lie in single solution but rather a utilization of technology to better address the wants and needs of users to share, interact, and learn more through specialized design solutions. We are certainly on the precipice of a whole new world for this morphed understanding of the “book.”If you are interested in hearing more about IDEO’s project, check out the interview with two of the project’s designers, Duane Bray and Robert Lenne, on WNYC’s Brian Lehrer Show. There’s also a conversation about the topic going on over at IDEO’s Facebook page.

Video and photos from IDEO.

This post was originally posted by Willem Van Lancker, 21 Sep 2010