Environments.

Why do we like to talk about environments?

What makes that such an appealing alternative to page, or event?

An environment combines several key emotional and physical aspects into a single, very understandable concept.
Architecture and interior design are very comprehensive disciplines. Both have an inherent combination of Art and Science that appeals to us all.

Living Spaces
Think of a room in your house
If it gets cluttered, it gets uncomfortable.
If it’s empty, it’s devoid of purpose.

Typically, when a space gets overwhelmed with clutter, we tend to take 2 actions:

• Spread it out (hence the shed)
• Throw it out

Online, we don’t tend to live in our own spaces, so we take less care.

To simply claim something is an environment is typically wrong
Each environmental space we create has 2 main reasons for existing :

• It Must have a Function
• It Must be Comfortable

Therefore
When we declare something to be an environment, it has to have the following defined:

What is the Purpose?

• What is the Size & Shape?
• What is the Decor?
• What is the Activity?

If we are unable to define the space, it is not a proper environment.

Worksheet
What is the Purpose?
Why are we creating this space? What is it meant to contain or describe?
What is the Size & Shape?
Does it contain multiple activities or spaces? Are there pre-defined constraints?
What is the Decor?
What is the aesthetic of the space? Is it unique or follow a previous direction?
What is the Activity?
What is the expected use of the space? What is its intended use?

Based on the issues that large-scale sites have around content, navigation and user understanding, a radical approach was needed.

The tree had failed. I realized it’s just basic growth theory… when one part of something gets too large to sustain, it begins to decay.

Or maybe it was like the rat king, and it got so intertwined it became an abomination. (Thank you 30 Rock: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_king).

So I found my approach:

An ambitious piece that was based on chapter 11 of the Tao Te Ching.

We join spokes together in a wheel,
but it is the center hole
that makes the wagon move.
(The site can be formless, provided it has a strong center.)

We shape clay into a pot,
but it is the emptiness inside
that holds whatever we want.
(The site is nothing but an empty structure, it is only as good as what it contains.)

We hammer wood for a house,
but it is the inner space
that makes it livable.
(The technologies we use exist to drive the site, they are not the reason the user is there.)

We work with being,
but non-being is what we use.
(The site works only provided others find their success within.)

Needless to say, it was overly-ambitious for the Automotive industry, but I still love it.

- Vladimir Horowitz on playing piano.

Boxes and arrows are fascist statements.

They indicate a herd mentality that we wish to push on our visitors. They show the world segmented into a series of non-contextual areas, but vaguely related spaces touted as an “experience”

Mark Rothko had it right… there is no edge to the box, no line connecting them.

the contents of the box should be a spectrum of interest as defined by the user. the path is an effort by the user of venturing further into each area.

Content should be sculped around a user’s position.

Simply, wherever they are is the best place they can be.

If current position is the best context, every item becomes a promising tipping point, or positive next step.

So what does this mean?

It means what most of us have come to find:

• Most navigation is junk
• All content should be multi-faceted
• Top-Down Tree-ing is dead

Some things we can do now

• Draw content maps instead of page maps
• Stop starting with navigation, and start thinking about how to indicate a story
• At each expected user point, think about what questions would stem from that content
• Stop aiming for the lowest common user
• Try for understandability over usability

Back in the nineties, my approach was based on Hagakure, but the focus was on the unstoppable force.

It was the beginning of the bubble. It was better to accelerate than slow down, and I expected everyone around me to keep pace.

Fans of Ayn Rand have told me that I followed her Pragmatist ideals. I think Ayn Rand didn’t account for my rock star tendencies.

Anyways…

I’ve found my work to be centered on striving for a singular purpose… or at least a solid tiering of goals.

Do one thing, do it very well, go to the next. Basing very complex interactions in this model has led to some fantastic results.

It’s been a hard sell to the backwards UX people who are still counting clicks and using phrases like “well, it could go there”

“We could…” means “We’re not going to” in my vocab. If you have to debate, yoink it out. You’ll be much better off without it.

“You are neither cold nor hot, so because you are lukewarm, I will spew you from my mouth”

Bill ‘The Butcher’ Cutting

The singlemindedness of an idea is what will propel it.

When the idea takes on additional weight, it falls apart, or changes to something it was not meant to be.