In truth, it’s more of a construct than a theory, and it’s not at all original at that–all the parts are derived from the well-established principles of design management. I just applied different components of that application into a visual model that made sense with the way I’ve been seeing and working with design every day for the past couple of years.

The shape, like a lot of theoretical models, is composed of three equal circles that converge at the center. What’s important to know about this model, though, is that it starts broadly at the top and funnels its way down to a more narrowly focused endpoint. This purposely suggests that design problems in need of a solution, regardless of individual design practices and organizational structures, optimally start with a large overall strategic objective, which eventually or simultaneously merges with operational practicalities, and becomes something real through iterative tactical execution.

All of the relevant parts are equal and overlap at multiple points, suggesting that each are far from estranged from one another, but rather remain integral to a higher working order which requires constant communication and coordination throughout a design life cycle. At its core, I believe, lies the heart of real design thinking, which independently can be used to develop the mythical “shared brain” among design practitioners and business thinkers alike.

While this model certainly needs a lot more substantial examination, if not explanation, I’ve found that it’s been adequate enough to allow me to organize where disciplines, people, and ideas fit into a given design context. I think it also sets my expectations for what design is, and where I think it needs to go–for the time being anyways.

I’ll be interested to see how it holds up, myself, in the future.

Mike & Cole Schindler
Christmas Camel 2009
Mixed Media

In psychology, emotional reactions to stimuli are called affective responses. Affective responses happen very fast, and are governed in an automatic, unconscious way by the lower centers of the brain that also govern basic instincts (food, fear, sex, breathing, blinking, etc.). Think of affective responses as the brain’s bottom-up reaction to what you see and feel. Cognitive responses are your brain’s slower, top-down, more considered responses. They’re governed by your personal cultural views, learning, experiences, and personal preferences that you are aware of and can easily articulate. Affective reactions assign value to your experiences; cognitive reactions assign meaning to what you see and use.

He even offers a measurable application of this viewpoint:

Research confirms that users make aesthetic decisions about the overall visual impression of web pages in as little as 50 milliseconds (1/20th of a second). These instant visceral reactions to web pages happen in virtually all users, are consistent over visit length, and strongly influence the user’s sense of trust in the information. In short, users have made fundamental, consistent, and lasting aesthetic decisions about the credibility and authority of sites before major eyetracking events begin.

While I think any designer worth his salt instinctually knows this, there’s an important truth to consider — any site with an objective to establish trust in users and confidence in doing business should execute on multiple levels — and at the visceral level it happens nearly instantaneously with users.

Much of that early content was lost (I don’t remember how, but let’s just say it was during a hurricane evacuation, because that really did happen). Anyway, I really can’t say the loss of those writings was such a terrible blow to culture as we know it today. But in my heart, I’ll always remember how it started. I spent a lot of time working on a portfolio site, which I still can’t find the courage to take down, despite its tarnished age. Back then I taught myself HTML through endless tinkering, trial and error, and more than a little time at my day job reading the paper print outs I’d made of Jeffrey Zeldman’s site (back then, he was calling himself Dr. Web, but if you called him that now, he’d probably think you were throwing down for a fight).

Nothing but love, Jeffrey.

So that’s where it all began. And I’ve re-designed the site today to celebrate the longevity of this experience. It has been something to watch–even for myself. And I look forward to sharing more content with you as I continually evolve and hopefully mature into the next phase of my existence.

In his goodbye post, he offers a glimpse of the design culture at the now monolithic corporate giant — a rant which has so far caught a lot of traction on the blogosphere.

Yes, it’s true that a team at Google couldn’t decide between two blues, so they’re testing 41 shades between each blue to see which one performs better. I had a recent debate over whether a border should be 3, 4 or 5 pixels wide, and was asked to prove my case. I can’t operate in an environment like that. I’ve grown tired of debating such minuscule design decisions. There are more exciting design problems in this world to tackle.

This statement, assuming again it’s true, reminded me of the analogy that Bill Moggridge, co-founder of IDEO and author of Designing Interactions, came up with for design, comparing it to an iceberg. Basically, if we can imagine that the smaller, exposed part of the iceberg, contains the quantitative, the objective, and the analytical, it only goes to follow that the much larger underwater part contains the qualitative, the subjective, and the aesthetic.

The bottom part, Moggridge argues, is the playground for unconscious, intuitive design.

Clearly, Google is a company that only wants to operate at the top of the iceberg. I wonder, though, how long it can continue to thrive when so much unmined territory goes waiting for others to explore.

Good luck to you, Douglas.

Go get some car insurance. That’s right. Tell them Iggy Pop sent you.

Mike Schindler
Two Turtle Doves 2008
Mixed Media / Holiday Card

Many of Mr Bush’s supporters will see it as a mean-spirited gesture against a man whose policies liberated the country from a vicious dictator.

To illustrate the point, in a previous age, the perpetrator would be facing a summary, and probably agonising, death if he had dared confront Saddam Hussein’s regime in such a way. Instead Mr Bush has been praised for his dignified response.

This is a moot point to me, since anyone who decides to attack a sitting American president in public with any type of weapon–be it a shoe, a salad fork, or any other flying object–most assuredly risks being shot on site by the Secret Service. It seems to me, then, that the salient take-away might be the strength of this man’s conviction despite the likely consequences–not the relative differences of said consequences in an occupied Iraq.

Was this man behaving civilly? No. Was his act eye opening? Absolutley.

[...] I think instead of sulking in this cataclysmic let-down, I’ll simply gather myself up and plan for the little bits of goodness that will surely come from living my life—spending time with my wife and our soon-to-be child.

Because the onus is not on me or anyone who had the good sense to recognize how messed up things really are. It never was. The burden of proof in the next four years lies with the people who voted for George W. Bush’s second term, knowing full well the record of his first.

And despite what some predicted, the Democrats did not go the way of the Whigs after 9/11. They held together and lost to a small margin in numbers. Talk of new parties and rearranging the electoral system are certain to happen and are a healthy part of our democracy. But there should be no deserters. The split line in this race demonstrates that the resistance is alive and kicking. It may need to regroup. It may need to rethink. But we should never be taken for granted again.

Because complacency for power’s sake is still wrong, and indifference to wrongness will always be a sin.

Judging from the number of political posts I’ve made since I wrote those words, I’ve clearly given my political voice to the proxy of mainstream news. Here we are in the worst financial shape since the Great Depression–something I only learned about in school–and at the cusp of a very real decision.

And the result of the last election, whether borne out of ignorance or fear, cannot happen again.

In all likelihood Barrack Obama will become the next president of the United States. In every important way, I think this is the right thing for America, or at least the country as I want to imagine it. He is clearly a gifted talent–a smart, honest, and sincere man who has bravely stepped up to what I believe is a spiritual calling.

I suppose at one time, the same could be said about his opponent, John McCain. And although I disagree with many of his political views, I believe he would have been acceptable, if not entirely predictable. But in too many ways, I think he’s lost himself along the way. At the very least, I believe he lost his intellectual honesty during his quest to get elected. Everything from his choice of running mate–a disingenuous anti-intellectual opportunist with questionable credentials at best–to his tacit approval of a campaign which tries to manipulate base human fear and hatred, have made me refuse to accept his candidacy wholesale.

And then there’s the other ticket. It’s funny that my own quote made so much about “the Democrats going the way of the Whigs.” That happened to be an actual paraphrase from Christopher Hitchens–the eloquent contrarian–who, ironically enough, has gone public with his decision to vote for Obama this time around.

Funny how things change.

Since it does seem that we will be watching history in the making, I can only hope that John McCain lives up to his promise of putting “country first.” It would be honorable of him to gracefully find some way of helping his campaign transition into what’s good for the country–not just himself. Instead of slinging more mud, or promising to fight beyond what’s appropriate or decent, he should bow out gracefully, if and when the time comes, like the honorable man I still believe he can be.

Yesterday, at 5:21pm, our daughter Chloe Annabel was born. She weighs seven pounds and thirteen ounces. When she came out, she immediately spoke to us with a soft, squeaky cry. It was love at first chirp.

Her three and a half year old brother, Cole, excited to see her for the first time, kept saying, “Aaawh, she’s so cute!”

Mommy and Daddy certainly think so too.

… See more pics over at Flickr.