星期一, 8月 27, 2012

IMES (Indoor MEssaging System)

http://imes.do-ppass.org/technical_information/about_imes

----

IMESとは?

  • IMES(Indoor Messaging System)とは、GPS衛星と同等の信号を用いる屋内測位方式のことで、電波の届きにくい屋内においても正確に位置を求めることが出来るように考えられたシステムです。
  • IMES方式は、日本の測位衛星システムである『準天頂衛星』の枠組みから発案され、IMES送信機は、その場所の位置情報をメッセージとして送信します。
  • GPS受信機(*IMES対応のGPS受信機)を搭載した端末であれば、特別なハード追加なしで利用できるため、GPSケータイなどGPS受信機を組み込むことのできるあらゆる機器での利用が期待されています。
  • 携帯電話では、2007年4月より緊急情報位置通知システムが運用されており、世界的にもE911など同様な制度があり、安心安全でのGPS利用が、世界規模で拡大しています。
【PRNとは】
擬似雑音コード番号。GPS信号は、CDMA方式で各衛星毎にPRN番号が割り当てられ、識別されている。
IMESのPRNは、米国より173-182が割り当てられている。

The difference between a UX Designer and UI Developer « Melbourne, as in the city.

http://asinthecity.com/2011/11/10/the-difference-between-a-ux-designer-and-ui-developer/

----

The difference between a UX Designer and UI Developer

NOVEMBER 10, 2011
I've recently found myself trying to explain the difference between the skills I bring to a project as a UX Designer and why I'm not able to cover the role of a dedicated UI Developer.
There is of course a necessary overlap between the skills-sets in these roles, which is a good thing. And some individuals have a broader coverage of skills than others. However, people outside of these roles don't always appreciate the specialist skills and focus that is required to work within them.
This as simply as I can describe the different skills required for each role:
  • User Experience (UX) Designer = Research + Design
  • UI Developer = Design + HTML/CSS/JS
  • Application Developer = Back-End coding + HTML/CSS/JS etc.
As much as I've tried to avoid it, I just haven't been able to prevent myself from creating a Venn diagram to visualise this.
These different combinations of skills bring with them a different perspective and focus on what each person does.
UX Designers combine their research and design skills together to understand the user needs and produce concepts/solutions/designs that people want to use. This requires a focus on human behaviours, psychology and understanding why people do what they do. It's all the soft squishy, creative stuff on the right-side of the brain.  Most UXers can tell you what it should do and why it should do it, but can't actually build something that works.
Application Developers (which is a very broad and hopefully inclusive term for your average technical skill set) build the underlying functionality which makes the product work. It's all about code, logic and the left-side of the brain.  Often heard from Developers is "I can make it work, but it won't look pretty". Meaning that they can craft HTML that will technically work, but it may not create a very good impression for anyone who is influenced by the look of it (which means your average end user).
UI Developers fill the middle ground by combining both design sensibilities and technical skills together. They are skilled at making something both look good and function in a browser/device at the same time. They have the production skills to be able to produce visual designs in Photoshop and then turn them in to HTML code that deals with the wonders of browser compatibilities.  This requires in-depth understanding of how browser rendering engines behave to be able to implement a design for the web that renders correctly and get all those pesky pixels to line up perfectly.
Of course this is very much a generalisation and it is possible to find people who work effortlessly across all these different skills-sets. I need to make the caveat that every person has different strengths and weaknesses. My point here is about the commonalities that define UX Designers, rather than each individual's unique differences.
There is an age-old discussion out there on should designers know how to code? which often ends up concluding that ideally, yes they should. However the kind of people who can effortlessly switch between focusing on code and user needs are a rarity. The mindset required for each is generally quite distinctly different. Most people just aren't wired up to do both. At the very least, even if they can, switching between them in their day-to-day role on a project tends to hinder their ability to do either well.
Breaking down Design further
Of course this is very much a simplification of the four areas covered in this diagram Research, Design, HTML, & Back-End. With just one wave of a Venn diagram I have lumped an entire technology industry in to just one circle. 

At the risk of complicating the main point of this post, I do feel the need to break down the area of Design a little bit more as it's the area that I feel most non-Designers struggle to understand the differences between the design disciplines, and the different the backgrounds that UXers come from.
Within the context of Software Development, I would argue that design is primarily all aboutVisual Design, Interaction Design & Information Design.
It has to be said that the line between these three design disciplines is very blurry and rarely possible to separate entirely (the best way I've seen them articulated is in Jesse James Garret'sJJG Elements of UX).
This is how I would expand my diagram and the roles to include them:
To further expand the distinction between the roles:
  • UX Designers focus on the structure and layout of content, navigation and how users interact with them. These don't normally (but can) try to be perfect from a visual perspective. The types of deliverables they produce include site-maps, user flows, prototypes and wireframes, which are more focussed on the underlying structure and purpose of the software.  The visual appearance does impact on these, but can be created as a separate layer that is applied over the top.
  • UI Developers focus on the way the functionality is displayed and the fine detail of how users interact with the interface. They produce the visual comps and functioning front-end code. This is very much about polished final production quality outputs.
The other role that I added in to the expanded version of the diagram is the Graphic Designer. It's worth calling out that there are specialists who tend to work solely in Photoshop to produce static visual comps. This starts to talk to the area of illustration, fine arts, print media and the more creative stuff. Traditionally within web design this was a separate role, but not so much any more. Within software design the majority of people tend to have developed technical skills to become a UI Designer/Dev.
The different disciplines within UX Design can be expanded further to paint a much more comprehensive picture. The best way I've seen it articulated was put together by Dan Saffer in his book Designing for Interaction. He represents the different disciplines of User Experience Design like this:
If you start thinking about designing experiences across different platforms, devices and contexts then you very quickly need to bring in Industrial Design, Architecture, etc. But that's a blog post for another day.

ユーザーを魅了するUI/UXとは?

http://oumlaut.net/ehonyaku/20120528-kddilabo-%E3%83%A6%E3%83%BC%E3%82%B6%E3%83%BC%E3%82%92%E9%AD%85%E4%BA%86%E3%81%99%E3%82%8Buiux%E3%81%A8%E3%81%AF%EF%BC%9F/

----

KDDIデザイニングスタジオ行われたセミナーに参加してきました。
実は初中村勇吾さん。中村さんの作品はけっこう好きなんですが、実際に使用する機会がありませんでした。
「ユーザーを魅了するUI/UX」ということで、どんなお話が聞けるのかわくわくしながら参加してきました。
まずはWOWの鹿野さんによる「美しさとは?」をテーマにした講演。
ある色が単体で存在してもそれは美しいとは言えないけれど、配色や色の変化、動き等の関係性が生じて初めて「美しい」と感じる、というお話でした。
ユーザーのやわらかな予測の中に小さな意外性や驚きを作ることで、美しさや楽しさを感じさせることが可能になるそうです。
ある程度の規則性が必要なUIでは使いどころが難しい気もしますが、遊び心として取り入れても面白そうです。

次にシャープの佐藤さんによる「シャープに置けるUI/UX開発の実際」についての講演。
UIがほとんど必要なかった時代から、UIが重要とされる時代になってきた現代。
シャープは冷蔵庫や電子レンジ等の様々なデバイスにUIを搭載し、新しい体験を提供しているそうです。
使ってみたいきっかけ作りとして、ジェスチャー操作等も取り入れているんだとか。
最近UXは「ユーザー調査」と語られるセミナーが多かったので、UXを「新しいコトづくり」として捉えた佐藤さんの講演はとても興味深かったです。
最後にtha ltd.の中村さんによる「INFOBARのデザイン」についての講演。
INFOBARは開発期間が短いということもあり、機能自体はあまり新しいことをせず、見せ方として「新しい」と感じる工夫をされたそうです。
INFORBARはiPhoneの対極を目指し、新聞のような一覧性やiGoogleのようなカスタマイズ性を取り入れたとのこと。
楽天を参考にされたというお話は興味深かったです。
開発はFlashモックでデザインと開発間で共通認識を持ちながら進めたそうです。
アジャイルやリーンのセミナーでも、早期にデザインと開発で共通認識を持つことが重要というお話があったのでしっくりきました。
登壇者の方がビジュアルデザインや映像デザインを手がけている方ということもあり、抽象的なお話が多かった気がします。
でも、視覚的にユーザーを魅了する方法を掘り下げる機会がなかったので、考え方のヒントをもらえた気がします。

User Experience Design

http://semanticstudios.com/publications/semantics/000029.php

----

User Experience Design

I've been practicing information architecture since 1994, and from Gopherto Google have seen dramatic changes in the landscape of organization, search and retrieval.
Through these ten tempestuous years, I've found the infamous three circle diagram to be a great tool for explaining how and why we must strike a unique balance on each project between business goals and context, user needs and behavior, and the available mix of content.
Three Circles of Information Architecture
Figure 1. The Three Circles of Information Architecture
While this diagram was conceived with IA in mind, it's equally useful for explaining UX. In conjunction with Jesse's masterpiece, I use the three circles to illustrate the distinction between user experience and user-centered design. I'm still not convinced UCD exists outside the realm of theory, but I practice user experience design every day.

Facets of the User Experience

When I broadened my interest from IA to UX, I found the need for a new diagram to illustrate the facets of user experience - especially to help clients understand why they must move beyond usability - and so with a little help from my friends developed the user experience honeycomb.
User Experience Honeycomb
Figure 2. The User Experience Honeycomb
Naturally, the jump from three circles to seven hexagons gave me an instant buzz, but after several months of road testing, I can safely say this diagram has survived the honeymoon.
Here's how I explain each facet or quality of the user experience:
  • Useful. As practitioners, we can't be content to paint within the lines drawn by managers. We must have the courage and creativity to ask whether our products and systems are useful, and to apply our deep knowledge of craft and medium to define innovative solutions that are more useful.
  • Usable. Ease of use remains vital, and yet the interface-centered methods and perspectives of human-computer interaction do not address all dimensions of web design. In short, usability is necessary but not sufficient.
  • Desirable. Our quest for efficiency must be tempered by an appreciation for the power and value of image, identity, brand, and other elements of emotional design.
  • Findable. We must strive to design navigable web sites and locatable objects, so users can find what they need.
  • Accessible. Just as our buildings have elevators and ramps, our web sites should be accessible to people with disabilities (more than 10% of the population). Today, it's good business and the ethical thing to do. Eventually, it will become the law.
  • Credible. Thanks to the Web Credibility Project, we're beginning to understand the design elements that influence whether users trust and believe what we tell them.
  • Valuable. Our sites must deliver value to our sponsors. For non-profits, the user experience must advance the mission. With for-profits, it must contribute to the bottom line and improve customer satisfaction.
The honeycomb hits the sweet spot by serving several purposes at once. First, it's a great tool for advancing the conversation beyond usability and for helping people understand the need to define priorities. Is it more important for your web site to be desirable or accessible? How about usable or credible? The truth is, it depends on your unique balance of context, content and users, and the required tradeoffs are better made explicitly than unconsciously.
Second, this model supports a modular approach to web design. Let's say you want to improve your site but lack the budget, time, or stomach for a complete overhaul. Why not try a targeted redesign, perhaps starting with Stanford's ten guidelines as a resource for evaluating and enhancing the credibility of your web site?
Third, each facet of the user experience honeycomb can serve as a singular looking glass, transforming how we see what we do, and enabling us to explore beyond conventional boundaries.

A Different Way of Seeing

For example, I realized some time ago that while "information architect" describes my profession, findability defines my passion.
Since then, I've found my focus on findability has opened my eyes, leading me beyond IA while simultaneously making me a betterinformation architect.
Last Summer, while redesigning the Q web site, we identified findability as a top priority. Our quest to make this small site more findable took me beyond the discipline of information architecture and deep into the realm of search engine optimization.
That experience proved useful last Fall, during a redesign project for theNational Cancer Institute, in which we used findability concepts and SEO statistics to alleviate an unhealthy fixation on the home page, raising awareness of the need to design findable documents for direct access via the Google, MSN, and Yahoo! search engines.
And this Spring, I was hired to perform my first findability audit for a major international nonprofit. Feeling a bit concerned about dedicating four weeks exclusively to findability, I asked whether I should also consider usability factors. "No thanks," my client replied. "We already had Jakob in last year to focus on usability."

A Big Hive

Though the findability audit was a success, it did feel ironic to once again be ensnared inside a box (or hexagon) of my own making.
But I'm sticking with findability for now. Between my new seminar, my new book, and findability.org, I'm busy as a bee.
And anytime I feel trapped, I can explore other facets of the user experience honeycomb, or perhaps even create a new diagram.
For me, user experience design is a big hive: a dynamic, multi-dimensional space where there's still plenty of room to build new boxes and draw new arrows, at least for the next ten years.

星期日, 8月 26, 2012

Green Pedestrian Crossing | The Inspiration Room

http://theinspirationroom.com/daily/2010/green-pedestrian-crossing/

----

Green Pedestrian Crossing
China Environmental Protection Foundation worked with DDB China Group to encourage people to walk more to create a greener environment, using a large canvas featuring a leafless tree. The canvas was placed in the middle of busy pedestrian crossings in Shanghai. On either side of the crossing were sponge cushions soaked in green environmentally-friendly washable and quick dry paint. As pedestrians walked towards the crossing they stepped on the sponges and the soles of their feet made footprints on the tree. Each green footprint added to the canvas like leaves growing on a bare tree. The campaign won a Gold Design Lion at Cannes International Advertising Festival 2010.

Green Pedestrian Crossing
The Green Pedestrian Crossing was carried out in seven main streets of Shanghai and later expanded to 132 roads in 15 cities across China. Over 3,920,000 people took part in the project. Key media both online and offline rapidly wrote about the campaign. According to research, the overall awareness of environmental protection had increased 86%. After the campaign, the print was exhibited at the Shanghai Zheng Da Art Museum.
Green Pedestrian Crossing
40% of carbon monoxide emissions come from cars. According to China's Ministry of Commerce; the country is now the world's largest car market with over 500 million vehicles on the road. This is without a doubt having a huge impact on the environment.
Green Pedestrian Crossing

Credits

The Green Pedestrian Crossing campaign was developed at DDB China by chief creative officer Michael Dee, creative director/art director/illustrator Jody Xiong, art director Jerry Cao, copywriter Jason Jin, typographer Super Zhang, producer George Ooi, account supervisor Chloe Reuter. Filming was shot by director Qiu Bo via Greenspot Shanghai with producer Gemini Wong. Photographers were Keno Zhao, Refine Images, and King Zhang, WIN Shanghai.

Shareaholic