Sir Jonathan Ive

// Interview by Mark Prigg with Jonathan Ive, 12-Mar 2012, London Evening Standard

Sir Jonathan Ive, Jony to his friends, is arguably one of the world‘s most influential Londoners. The 45-year-old was born in Chingford — and went to the same school as David Beckham. He met his wife, Heather Pegg, while in secondary school. They married in 1987, have twin sons and now live in San Francisco. As Apple‘s Senior Vice President of Industrial Design, he is the driving force behind the firm‘s products, from the Mac computer to the iPod, iPhone and, most recently the iPad. He spoke exclusively to the Evening Standard at the firm‘s Cupertino headquarters.

Q: You recently received a Knighthood for services to design – was that a proud moment?

A: I was absolutely thrilled, and at the same time completely humbled. I am very aware that I‘m the product of growing up in England, and the tradition of designing and making, of England industrialising first. The emphasis and value on ideas and original thinking is an innate part of British culture, and in many ways, that describes the traditions of design.

Is London still an important city for design?

I left London in 1992, but I‘m there 3-4 times a year, and love visiting. It‘s a very important city, and makes a significant contribution to design, to creating something new where previously something didn‘t exist.

How does London differ from Silicon Valley?

The proximity of different creative industries and London is remarkable, and is in many ways unique. I think that has led to a very different feel to Silicon Valley.

Why did you decide to move to California?

What I enjoy about being here is there is a remarkable optimism, and an attitude to try out and explore ideas without the fear of failure. There is a very simple and practical sense that a couple of people have an idea and decide to form a company to do it. I like that very practical and straightforward approach. There‘s not a sense of looking to generate money, its about having an idea and doing it – I think that characterises this area and its focus.

What makes design different at Apple?

We struggle with the right words to describe the design process at† Apple, but it is very much about designing and prototyping and making. When you separate those, I think the final result suffers. If something is going to be better, it is new, and if it‘s new you are confronting problems and challenges you don‘t have references for. To solve and address those requires a remarkable focus. There‘s a sense of being inquisitive and optimistic, and you don‘t see those in combination very often.

How does a new product come about at Apple?

What I love about the creative process, and this may sound naive, but it is this idea that one day there is no idea, and no solution, but then the next day there is an idea. I find that incredibly exciting and conceptually actually remarkable. The nature of having ideas and creativity is incredibly inspiring. There is an idea which is solitary, fragile and tentative and doesn‘t have form. What we‘ve found here is that it then becomes a conversation, although remains very fragile. When you see the most dramatic shift is when you transition from an abstract idea to a slightly more material conversation. But when you made a 3D model, however crude, you bring form to a nebulous idea, and everything changes – the entire process shifts. It galvanises and brings focus from a broad group of people. It‘s a remarkable process.

What makes a great designer?

It is so important to be light on your feet, inquisitive and interested in being wrong. You have that† wonderful fascination with the what if questions, but you also need absolute focus and a keen insight into the context and what is important – that is really terribly important. Its about contradictions you have to navigate.

What are your goals when setting out to build a new product?

Our goals are very simple – to design and make better products. If we can‘t make something that is better, we won‘t do it.

Why has Apple‘s competition struggled to do that?

That’s quite unusual, most of our competitors are interesting in doing something different, or want to appear new – I think those are completely the wrong goals. A product has to be genuinely better. This requires real discipline, and that‘s what drives us – a sincere, genuine appetite to do something that is better. Committees just don‘t work, and it‘s not about price, schedule or a bizarre marketing goal to appear different – they are corporate goals with scant regard for people who use the product.

When did you first become aware of the importance of designers?

First time I was aware of this sense of the group of people who made something was when I first used a Mac – I‘d gone through college in the 80s using a computer and had a horrid experience. Then I discovered the mac, it was such a dramatic moment and I remember it so clearly – there was a real sense of the people who made it.

When you are coming up with product ideas such as the iPod, do you try to solve a problem?

There are different approaches – sometimes things can irritate you so you become aware of a problem, which is a very pragmatic approach and the least challenging. What is more difficult is when you are intrigued by an opportunity. That, I think, really exercises the skills of a designer. It‘s not a problem you‘re aware or, nobody has articulated a need. But you start asking questions, what if we do this, combine it with that, would that be useful? This creates opportunities that could replace entire categories of device, rather than tactically responding to an individual problem. That‘s the real challenge, and that‘s what is exciting.

Has that led to new products within Apple?

Examples are products like the iPhone, iPod and iPad. That fanatical attention to detail and coming across a problem and being determined to solve it is critically important – that defines your minute by minute, day by day experience.

How to you know consumers will want your products?

We don‘t do focus groups – that is the job of the designer. It‘s unfair to ask people who don‘t have a sense of the opportunities of tomorrow from the context of today to design.

Your team of designers is very small – is that the key to its success?

The way we work at Apple is that the complexity of these products really makes it critical to work collaboratively, with different areas of expertise. I think that‘s one of the things about my job I enjoy the most. I work with silicon designers, electronic and mechanical engineers, and I think you would struggle to determine who does what when we get together. We‘re located together, we share the same goal, have exactly the same preoccupation with making great products. One of the other things that enables this is that we‘ve been doing this together for many years – there is a collective confidence when you are facing a seemingly insurmoutable challenge, and there were multiple times on the iPhone or ipad where we have to think ëwill this work‘ we simply didn‘t have points of reference.

Is it easy to get sidetracked by tiny details on a project?

When you‘re trying to solve a problem on a new product type, you become completely focused on problems that seem a number of steps removed from the main product. That problem solving can appear a little abstract, and it is easy to lose sight of the product. I think that is where having years and years of experience gives you that confidence that if you keep pushing, you‘ll get there.

Can this obsession with detail get out of control?

It‘s incredibly time consuming, you can spent months and months and months on a tiny detail – but unless you solve that tiny problem, you can‘t solve this other, fundamental product.
You often feel there is no sense these can be solved, but you have faith. This is why these innovations are so hard – there are no points of reference.

How do you know you‘ve succeeded?

It‘s a very strange thing for a designer to say, but one of the things that really irritates me in products is when I‘m aware of designers wagging their tails in my face. Our goal is simple objects, objects that you can‘t imagine any other way. Simplicity is not the absence of clutter. Get it right, and you become closer and more focused on the object. For instance, the iPhoto app we created for the new iPad, it completely consumes you and you forget you are using an iPad.

What are the biggest challenges in constantly innovating?

For as long as we‘ve been doing this, I am still surprised how difficult it is to do this, but you know exactly when you‘re there – it can be the smallest shift, and suddenly transforms the object, without any contrivance. Some of the problem solving in the iPad is really quite remarkable, there is this danger you want to communicate this to people. I think that is a fantastic irony, how oblivious people are to the acrobatics we‘ve performed to solve a problem – but that‘s our job, and I think people know there is tremendous care behind the finished product.

Do consumers really care about good design?

One of the things we‘ve really learnt over the last 20 years is that while people would often struggle to articulate why they like something – as consumers we are incredibly discerning, we sense where has been great care in the design, and when there is cynicism and greed. It‘s one of the thing we‘ve found really encouraging.

Users have become incredibly attached, almost obsessively so, to Apple‘s products – why is this?

It sound so obvious, but I remember being shocked to use a Mac, and somehow have this sense I was having a keen awareness of the people and values of those who made it. I think that people‘s emotional connection to our products is that they sense our care, and the amount of work that has gone into creating it.

[Sir Jonathan Ive: The iMan cometh. Interview by Mark Prigg for the London Evening Standard, 12-Mar-2012]

á propos:

The Shape Of Things To Come by Ian Parker, The New Yorker, Feb 2015

Interaction designers are like guinea pigs

The Hamburg UX Roundtable for March was about interaction design and SCRUM. Uli and Janina presented CoreMedia‘s approach to live in cooperative co-existence between development and interaction design.
My favorite quote of the evening:

Interaktionsdesigner sind wie Meerschweinchen. Sie gehen ein, wenn man sie alleine hält. // Interaction designers are like guinea pigs. They die if you try to keep just one.

My favorite idea of the evening: serve jelly pudding in the UI color scheme of the new style guide.

Interaction 12 in Dublin – Highlights of Day 3

Dublin, Feb-4, 2012. The forth day of Interaction 12  –  actually the third day with a regular conference program in the Conference Center Dublin. BTW_ The CCD reminds me of a database drum, much like the architecture at Oracle’s headquarters in Redwood, CA, just a little bit tilted.

Congress Center Dublin //image by ericthebell

Interaction’s workshops were held on Wednesday, which I did not attend because I conducted “my own” VDI workshops with my engineering colleagues at Oracle in Dublin.

Biomimic Infographic

The most beautiful presentation – both visual and by content – was given by Pete Denman. Pete argued that typical business charts only express very simplified aspects of data sets. To demonstrate the flaws of pie-charts he compared the famous illustration of Napoleon’s war against Russia 1812-13, made popular by Edward Tufte, with a typical modern pie-chart: 95% French men fucked, 5% kind of fucked (see slide 5 and 6 below).

Pete found inspiration in nature to better represent huge data sets on screen. He developed an app for iPad to display medical data. The photos on slide 9-14 can only give a faint idea of the beauty of animated flowers of data. Very well done. And hopefully an example that encourages other to go into the same direction as well.

In anticipation of the conference, core77’s interview with Pete.

Restoring a Sense of Wonder

Too slow to be really good was Michael Smyth’ Critical Design: Restoring a Sense of Wonder in Interaction Design. He presented a series of examples how design and (street) art and urban installations shift the perspective of the observer. Indeed, yet another reference to McLuhan. I liked most the project digitalAntiques (slides 20-22) where antique statues were projected on the walls of Split during the night.

Rage Against the Machines

The closing keynote by Genevieve Bell was an entertaining Rage Against the Machines – Designing our futures with computing. She joined Intel in 1998 with a fresh PhD in anthropology. Her boss told her to do research for Intel on two questions:

  1. Women – half of the population on earth!
  2. ROW – rest of world – in the sense of “everything outside of the USA”!

Well, others complain about more restrictive research agendas… As said, a very amusing talk.

She continued to provide an short overview on the history of mechanical automata, like the Digesting Duck by Jacques de Vaucanson (1739) and the Mechanical Turk by Freiherr von Kempelen, that eventually lead to a meetup of generations between Furby and Siri:

However,
Mrs. Bell lost me when she indicated that it was Joe Weizenbaum’s intention to pass the Turing Test with his Doctor Script for Eliza. In my opinion it is irritating to bend history just to make it fit into a story line. When such things happen, I start to mistrust other facts and conclusions drawn by the presenter as well. A missed opportunity for a good closing keynote at Interaction 12 in Dublin.

webcast of Genevieve Bell’s presentation

>> Ciara Taylor’s summary at core77

Interaction 12 in Dublin – Highlights of Day 2

Friday, the second day of Interaction 12 in Dublin. US folks were suffering under jet lags – I had a little hang-over. Did I mention that the conference took place in Dublin? Between 750 and 800 people attended the fifth interaction conference, the first one in Europe. IxDA itself started in 2003 as a mailing list after Tog has pointed out the enemy: Us. Since then IxDA grew as a nonprofit organization to several thousands of people; 28,000 on IxDA discuss35,000 on LinkedIn. But now back to Friday_

Sketching sometimes involves coding

Exploring, Sketching and Other Designerly Ways of Working was the keynote by Jonas Löwgren. If you know Bill Buxton and his book Sketching User Experiences – Getting The Design Right and The Right Design you are already familiar with the idea that sketches are not necessarily limited to pencil on paper. Jonas presented several examples that involve – drum roll – coding! Sometimes story boarding, wireframing, and mockups are not sufficient to explore the user experience of a new product, site, or service. Pinpoint is a design study of an interactive visualization to find people with related interests in large organizations (ACM 2010). Jonas and his team developed several iterations until the crowd moves in a natural way. You can also call this approach prototyping, and then consider prototyping one way of sketching. Voilà.

Pinpoint demonstrator video

I just wonder how many people can be visualized before the screen gets too crowded.

Another example. Mediated Body is an acoustic device that senses the aura (vicinity) of human bodies and translates it into sound – same principle as the Theremin. Now, show me how this experience can be predicted without building and using the thing.

Mediated Body /video

webcast of Jonas Löwgren’s presentation

Understanding Us

…reminds me of Understanding Media by Marshall McLuhan. Big shoes to fill. Dirk Knemeyer chose this title for his passionate talk about unsolved issues between people.

 /more photos

Dirk argued for more human and psychological properties in technology (instead of abandoning technical tools at all, and going to the park to play with your kids. Well the truth and future should be somewhere in between.) Starting from C.G. Jung, he presented several psychological models, and built the path to a social web that takes individual mental strength and weaknesses into account. I hope a webcast will be available soon to re-listen to his considerations. Until then, the slides must do.

Sculpture

I love listening to talks that open a new point of view. Rachel Bolton-Nasir used her passion for skulpture as a design lens, to better understand design. And she discussed the dimensions of form / multiple viewpoints / physical parts / bodily empathy / multi-sensory and context for zipcar.

Usability Testing does not test for Social

Dana Chisnell made the point that the artificial situation of usability testing often neglects the social context. In her example a usability test should evaluate the design of a site to calculate your rent, and to choose between several options. The participant started to cry because she never does such decisions without asking her dad, but her dad recently passed away. Very often the context is larger than the space between the user and the screen.
Dana gave another example, the failure of Google buzz. Despite the fact that Google has used and tested buzz internally for quite some time, the product was a failure. Testing does not help, if your test group does not represent the user base.

And the winner is…

For the first time IxDA run the Interaction Awards. This Friday night was the impressive ceremony to announce the winners. Several of the finalists and, of course, the winning projects are presented at Interaction Awards Winners 2012.

Interaction 12 in Dublin – Highlights of Day 1

Exactly a week ago, Interaction 12 was kicked off by the mayor of Dublin. I mean the real mayor rather than the one in 4square. He talked about (sub)urban planning and the public bicycle system in Dublin. He was proud to say that a minor change in the interaction design prevented the theft of many bikes. Other than Paris (they lost hundreds), the pole to get a bike is not prominently highlighted in a way that everybody can take the bike as soon as it unlocks. Just two bikes were stolen and both were returned. Clever briefing, or clever mayor – you decide.

Disrupt

After a while I decided to like the opening keynote by Luke Williams. He tackled the general problem of large companies (hey, this should apply to Oracle as well) that they are obviously unable to create new disruptive markets. If they have a business, a successful business, they focus to exploit it as long as possible. But they neglect to go for niche markets, because the dollars are earned in the main stream. Blockbuster Video ignored Netflix. Kodak ignored digital photography. Nokia ignored Apple and Google in the mobile phone market…

Luke offered the idea to do exactly the opposite of the (current) cliché. Why –the heck– are socks sold in pairs? – My mind kicked in and said, “yeah, if I have a hole if a friend has a hole in his sock he can buy just one sock to complete the pair. Makes sense!” But Luke continued to explain that a company built a business on selling socks in sets of three. And none of them has the same pattern! Kids and girls in specific love the brand.

a few more images 

Interview with Luke Williams, core77

webcast of Luke Williams’ presentation

Videos shown by Luke_

National Leprechaun Museum

The disruptive highlight of the day was Tom O’Rehilly’s talk on Imagination and Identity. Tom started his career with selling luxury furniture, until he realized that he was in fact selling experiences. Welcome Tom, to the field of user experience and interaction design. I do not remember why he told the story of Brasil, an island on the shores of Ireland that only appeared every 7 years. But I do remember his stories about the Leprechaun, a little Irish wizard or dwarf that is very hard to track. Tom runs the National Leprechaun Museum in Dublin, which is called a museum for the lack of a better name. It is an experience that turns the visitors into little Leprechauns themselves. You enter through a wooden tunnel that changes its diameter while you walk though. It must be a spectacular effect like Alice through the rabbit’s hole.

/photo cc by The National Leprechaun Museum

What If…

The second keynote of the day should be mentioned: What If… crafting design speculations by Anthony Dunne.

/more photos

I am happy that the webcast of Anthony Dunne’s presentation is available.

In addition to the summary at core77, I will try to add more video links for the projects_

Related_

You can influence life

Everything around you that you call life was made up by people that were no smarter than you. And you can change it. You can influence it. You can build your own things that other people can use. Once you learn that you will never be the same again. – Steve Jobs