All My Checks :( & I’m Still Writing I don’t know a single word that adequately expresses this experience, so let me start by taking a few minutes to just describe it.
responsive design? Should web designers know how to code? What I’m talking about is a certain class of struggle - more like a battle. We’re trying to advance our field - pushing a valuable cause. It’s messy and disruptive.
boss understand that we should be doing responsive design? How can we keep clients from ruining the work we do for them? We know the way things should go - or at the very least, we have solid ideas and strong opinions.
boss understand that we should be doing responsive design? How can we keep clients from ruining the work we do for them? How come my neighbors don’t realize that blasting their country music is offensive? Chances are, a lot of us in this room are engaged in one of these struggles right now. And we employ a pretty standard cadre of activities in our persuasive attempts.
in one way it would be nice if our inability to effect change were this simply attributable. “Nice,” but not in a meaningful way, right? After all, our point is to effect change. So then it’s very good news, actually, that our Sisyphean nightmare continues not simply because of others’ resistance to change, but in service of our own.
what we’re doing during the persuasive cycle I just described, and see where things are breaking down. <next build> Now, obviously, whoever first proposed “Web Designers Should Know How To Code” was trying to solve a problem. <next build> And the problem was something to this effect. <next slide>
look at what we’re doing during the persuasive cycle I just described, and see where things are breaking down. <next build> Now, obviously, whoever first proposed “Web Designers Should Know How To Code” was trying to solve a problem. <next build> And the problem was something to this effect. <next slide>
Statement Let’s [SLOW DOWN] take a little closer look at what we’re doing during the persuasive cycle I just described, and see where things are breaking down. <next build> Now, obviously, whoever first proposed “Web Designers Should Know How To Code” was trying to solve a problem. <next build> And the problem was something to this effect. <next slide>
though, is that it was sufficiently favored that it became the position <next build> of greatest rhetorical (if not practical) prominence driving search to close the skills chasm between web designers and developers.
<next build> though, is that it was sufficiently favored that it became the position <next build> of greatest rhetorical (if not practical) prominence driving search to close the skills chasm between web designers and developers.
we all know at this point <next build> though, is that it was sufficiently favored that it became the position <next build> of greatest rhetorical (if not practical) prominence driving search to close the skills chasm between web designers and developers.
of us individually) went to work developing the supporting rationale. <next build> (with the prosthelytizing and the blogging and the demo construction and the infographics and and...) ...and as we got close to having something akin to a solid case for our position, <next build> we began sharing with our colleagues and friends. And we got feedback - some encouraging, some disheartening, and with it <next build> we strengthened our argument. PILED ON THE PERFECTION. Did away with the weaknesses, bolstered the strengths, getting closer by the iteration to the apparent holy grail of <next build> Rhetorical Impenetrability. Now, this is the point where, if you’re like me, <next slide>
many of us individually) went to work developing the supporting rationale. <next build> (with the prosthelytizing and the blogging and the demo construction and the infographics and and...) ...and as we got close to having something akin to a solid case for our position, <next build> we began sharing with our colleagues and friends. And we got feedback - some encouraging, some disheartening, and with it <next build> we strengthened our argument. PILED ON THE PERFECTION. Did away with the weaknesses, bolstered the strengths, getting closer by the iteration to the apparent holy grail of <next build> Rhetorical Impenetrability. Now, this is the point where, if you’re like me, <next slide>
(and many of us individually) went to work developing the supporting rationale. <next build> (with the prosthelytizing and the blogging and the demo construction and the infographics and and...) ...and as we got close to having something akin to a solid case for our position, <next build> we began sharing with our colleagues and friends. And we got feedback - some encouraging, some disheartening, and with it <next build> we strengthened our argument. PILED ON THE PERFECTION. Did away with the weaknesses, bolstered the strengths, getting closer by the iteration to the apparent holy grail of <next build> Rhetorical Impenetrability. Now, this is the point where, if you’re like me, <next slide>
collectively (and many of us individually) went to work developing the supporting rationale. <next build> (with the prosthelytizing and the blogging and the demo construction and the infographics and and...) ...and as we got close to having something akin to a solid case for our position, <next build> we began sharing with our colleagues and friends. And we got feedback - some encouraging, some disheartening, and with it <next build> we strengthened our argument. PILED ON THE PERFECTION. Did away with the weaknesses, bolstered the strengths, getting closer by the iteration to the apparent holy grail of <next build> Rhetorical Impenetrability. Now, this is the point where, if you’re like me, <next slide>
impetus, we collectively (and many of us individually) went to work developing the supporting rationale. <next build> (with the prosthelytizing and the blogging and the demo construction and the infographics and and...) ...and as we got close to having something akin to a solid case for our position, <next build> we began sharing with our colleagues and friends. And we got feedback - some encouraging, some disheartening, and with it <next build> we strengthened our argument. PILED ON THE PERFECTION. Did away with the weaknesses, bolstered the strengths, getting closer by the iteration to the apparent holy grail of <next build> Rhetorical Impenetrability. Now, this is the point where, if you’re like me, <next slide>
be, the more entrenched we become. And we develop dialogic rigidity. Now this is a huge problem on a lot of levels. Rigidity like this decreases the likelihood that we’ll succeed in convincing someone to see things our way. So, ironically, the better we are at building persuasive arguments, the less likely we are to win people to our side.
bias, whereby once we’ve decided we like a position - once we’ve made it a belief <next build> we see evidence of its rightness everywhere. Evidence of its wrongness could be everywhere, and we don’t even see it. This is irrational, though! Why would we behave this way? Reference: (definition) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias (in politics) http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/hope-for-reason/?hp
that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses To complicate matters, there’s this thing called confirmation bias, whereby once we’ve decided we like a position - once we’ve made it a belief <next build> we see evidence of its rightness everywhere. Evidence of its wrongness could be everywhere, and we don’t even see it. This is irrational, though! Why would we behave this way? Reference: (definition) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias (in politics) http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/hope-for-reason/?hp
affected by it. We broadly accept that everyone is wrong sometimes, but us? Not that often. And especially not right now, at least regarding anything that comes to mind.
up to the moment you realize you’re wrong about something, there is precisely one possibility - that you’re right. If you’re searching for a solution to an intractable problem, a world of one possible solution - that isn’t even working - is an awfully bleak prospect.
to the detriment of exploration. (passionate) • We favor information that reinforces existing beliefs over information that informs growth. (well-informed) • We are terrible knowing, let alone admitting, when we’re wrong. (confident) This is what we call Expertise.
the potentially unnerving prospect that, at as fundamental an inflection point as this, we got something wrong. Now, I’m not especially interested in this question - and for our purposes right now, I’m explicitly disinterested in trying to definitively answer it. What interests me about this question are: 1) its origin story, and 2) its performance in the dialogic marketplace
origin story. While we can only guess at specifics, we can be pretty sure that this didn’t start life as a question. Both the asker’s belief and rhetorical intent are made pretty clear here...
a huge leap to realize we’re dealing with a rhetorical question. Now this isn’t to say the question is disingenuous, but to point out that it makes some significant assumptions, whether phrased as a question or a statement.
DO is know how to code. Now that they should know ABOUT code. Not that they should teach developers (or project managers or creative or UX directors, etc) how to design. Not that they should act as overseers of the implementation of their design work. That they should KNOW HOW TO CODE. That’s Assumption #2. Assumption #3 is a little harder to spot, and to do so, we have to ask what this assertion here is implying.
how to code - the speaker is implying a preceding conclusion: That the reason for the *skills chasm* is an insufficiency in the skill sets of Web Designers. Now, how many of you here right now are comfortable with that inference - that assumption - that the challenges of taking a web project from design to implementation arise (maybe not wholly, but at least primarily) from an insufficiency in Web Designers’ skills? (assume not many hands up) Not a lot, right? Any?
- as a fulcrum of our professional dialog, we have effectively limited the scope of our search for solutions to those which solve the “problem” of Web Designers not also being programmers.
consider the question from that perspective, it begins to be less perplexing that a change agenda born of it might be a little challenging to push. Yet, here we are. We’ve constrained ourselves to a binary world of one proposed solution, the answer to which is either YES or NO, and I think we’ve done that quite by accident. This, I believe, is a big problem.
I said about the Web Designers question, because it’s important and it’s fundamental for our quest: I said I was expressly disinterested in definitively answering the question, “Should Web Designers know how to code?” And while at least one reason for that now hopefully seems obvious, I actually extend that disinterest to all of the questions I flashed on the screen earlier...
boss understand that we should be doing responsive design? How can we keep clients from ruining the work we do for them? How come my neighbors don’t realize that blasting their country music is offensive? They’re not all YES/NO questions, but they all make assumptions that...
boss understand that we should be doing responsive design? How can we keep clients from ruining the work we do for them? How come my neighbors don’t realize that blasting their country music is offensive? ...from a persuasive standpoint if not from a logical one, are likely to do more harm than good. So my disinterest in answering them is deliberate and practiced.
moment, let’s talk about the question, “Should Web Designers Know How To Code?” ----- And forget whether you’re with me or not regarding problems with the question itself, and consider that any answer of either “yes” or “no” assumes control over too many variables to be useful. Does the designer WANT to learn how to code? Would that encroach on others’ responsibilities? Is it practical considering constraints? ----- Really, outside the confines of the idealism of our own mind, a “yes” or “no” answer here is nonsensical. A sensible answer is something closer to “depends,” or, because I’m still young enough to shudder at the prospect of eventually ending up in adult diapers, “maybe.”
seemingly absurd, proposition, so I want to tell you a story. It’s a taoist fable about an old farmer who’d worked his crops for many years. One day, horse ran away. Upon hearing the news, neighbors came to visit. “Such bad luck,” they said sympathetically. “Maybe,” replied the farmer. The next morning, the horse returned, bringing with it three wild horses. “How wonderful,” the neighbors exclaimed. “Maybe,” replied the farmer. The following day, his son tried to ride one of the untamed horses, was thrown, and broke his leg. Again, the neighbors came to offer their sympathy at the misfortune. “Maybe,” replied the farmer. The day after, military officials came to the village to draft young men into the army. Seeing that the son’s leg was broken, they passed him by. The neighbors congratulated the farmer on how well things had turned out. By now, you already know the farmer’s reply.
an acceptance of the potential that not only might we not have a monopoly on the correct answer, but that we might not even be asking the right question. Nothing counterproductive about Maybe. In my experience, “Maybe” stimulates productivity by relaxing our egoic grip on “rightness,” and that makes it an inestimably practical answer to hold.
and “seeking” and plant yourself in opposition to knowing. Why? There is precisely one precursor to discovery, and that is a lack of knowledge. The longer you can not know something, the more you’ll explore.
langue. or a new language. And you’re not limited to romance or germanic languages. The more foreign the language, the more it expands your existing schemas.
which has attempted to drive it under a bridge that affords ALMOST - but not quite - enough clearance. So the truck gets stuck. At first, the driver tries to give it more gas, accepting that his truck will be damaged, but hoping to squeak through. No luck. Then he tries to back up, but it’s no use. He’s stuck. So he flags down passers by and asks them to climb up on the truck’s hood and attempt to weigh it down so he can back it up. No luck. Police arrive and so does a tow-truck. Hook up winch and try to drag him out. No luck. Finally, kid in back seat her parents car as it sits in the opposite lane waiting for the police to flag them through, rolls
pen developed by NASA, and how the Russians bested the Americans by using a 10-cent pencil. But how many of us know that story is apocryphal? The truth is that, initially, both the Americans and the Russians used pencils in space, but they were expensive because they had to be constructed of special fibers and they were bad for missions because they shed graphite dust and graphite dust, as you might intuit, isn’t something you want inside your space instruments. The space pen was invented by Fisher specifically because of this problem, and sold to NASA (and the Russians) for a modest $1.98 apiece.
come from? Certainly reeks of Soviet propaganda, but its effectiveness lies in how beautifully it illustrates the power of reframing. source http://io9.com/5838635/the-million-dollar-space-pen-hoax
hooey about the Russians’ low-tech ingenuity come from? Certainly reeks of Soviet propaganda, but its effectiveness lies in how beautifully it illustrates the power of reframing. source http://io9.com/5838635/the-million-dollar-space-pen-hoax
your point. The Einstein test is pretty easy to administer in my household. I just trap one of my children in a chair, set a mental timer for 30 seconds (because that’s the most I’m going to get), and explain my idea.
administer in my household. I just trap one of my children in a chair, set a mental timer for 30 seconds (because that’s the most I’m going to get), and explain my idea.
Okay, so that’s a lot of things. Maybe more than six things. But at a high level, it’s just a simple list of six strategies we can apply in daily life, in the pursuit of asking clearer, more creative questions.
- half the room including me Okay, so that’s a lot of things. Maybe more than six things. But at a high level, it’s just a simple list of six strategies we can apply in daily life, in the pursuit of asking clearer, more creative questions.
4. Reframe Now these are six good bits of advice! But we’re not exactly in short supply of advice. What matters about stuff like this is how you apply it.
4. Reframe 5. Don’t Be Fancy Now these are six good bits of advice! But we’re not exactly in short supply of advice. What matters about stuff like this is how you apply it.
4. Reframe 5. Don’t Be Fancy 6. Love, Love, Love Now these are six good bits of advice! But we’re not exactly in short supply of advice. What matters about stuff like this is how you apply it.
people most of us will ever meet. A fair number of the people who inspire me every day are in this very auditorium. My hope, in sharing what I prepared for today, is on one count ridiculously utopian and, on the other, shamelessly selfish.
Hill Valley. Yeah, well, history is gonna change. Simply put, I want you amazing colleagues to challenge and nurture one another - to challenge and nurture me - as vigorously as you possibly can. Because we truly are in the business of changing futures. And we’re all in it together.
ukaoli
littlebusters
ajstarks
ashapiro
ryu1013
tajima_kaho
visional_engineering_and_design
securecat
nagata03
lynteo
kumanoayumi
garyuten
marketingsoph
tomoyanonymous
akademiya2063
speakerdeck
techseoconnect
carmenintech
katarinadahlin
lcolladotor
ryanjones
garrettdimon
brad_frost
![! Let’s [SLOW DOWN] take a little closer look at](https://files.speakerdeck.com/presentations/508dc69c381f560002002c83/slide_23.jpg){kind=link}
![! Problem Statement Let’s [SLOW DOWN] take a little closer](https://files.speakerdeck.com/presentations/508dc69c381f560002002c83/slide_24.jpg){kind=link}
