Come on down to visit Teehan+Lax for this year’s edition of Start-Up Open House Toronto.

That’s next Thursday, October 30, from 4-7pm

(Entrance on East side of building)

We’ll be here to showcase and chat about some of the start-up work we’ve done recently and give you a hands-on tour of the lab. You may just spot Jon out front on the grill cooking up some of his award-winning fresh farm sausages. Plus we’ve got t-shirts and other T+L swag to give away. So bring the kids—bring the whole family—and we’ll see y’all next Thursday.

If you haven’t already, don’t forget to register to participate in this event. You can do so right here.

Murdico comes close to identifying this problem at the beginning of his piece when he talks about a disconnect that often exists between the “perceived value of the work, the scope of the work and the results that work will yield.” But his solution—which is essentially that clients should take on more of a controlling and demanding role inside of project work—deals with the symptoms of that disconnect, not the cause. The cause, I would suggest, is misaligned incentives that were established before the work ever began.

Let me put it another way: The 5 recommendations given in this piece are 1) hold agencies accountable, 2) demand measurement, 3) require flexibility, 4) expect creativity, and 5) communicate. These are all great and vital things—so much so that you have to ask why wouldn’t an agency want this in the first place?

Imagine applying advice like this to working with a PwC or an Ernst & Young. It would seem pretty redundant and unnecessary, would it not? Of course they’re going to think creatively, of course they’re going to measure, of course they’re going to communicate. That’s what they’re paid to do. You hire them to solve big, complicated problems and set up the engagement and pricing model around that expectation.

2 years ago, Jon Lax talked about our decision to get rid of the hourly rate. We did this because we wanted to get out of the business of selling hours to clients. When you sell hours vs. outcomes, you’re incented be efficient vs. effective. Murdico’s recommendations are great for monitoring and managing agencies that are striving to be efficient instead of adding real value. But if you truly want to get more out of your digital agency, perhaps taking a hard look at why and how you hired them to begin with is a better place to start.

It’s been over a year since we moved into our new space in Liberty Village, and believe it or not, it’s taken us about as long to finally settle-in. We really love it here, but always have ideas for improving things to make it even more of a creative and collaborative environment. So if you’re interested in updating your workspace, or maybe have some tips for us, here’s a little insight into what it’s like to come to work at 109 Atlantic Ave.

If you do some digging into research about collaborative workspaces, you’ll come across a few main themes:

Vision

It turns out that literally seeing what’s going on around you where you work can really help to stoke the creative and collaborative process. One of the most visually distinctive elements of our space is all of the glass. We’ve found that this has given us more than just a cool aesthetic—it reveals where the action is, who’s involved, and who’s available to be pulled-in. Even the main boardroom, a central feature in the office layout, is enclosed in glass. Far from distracting, we’ve found it makes our clients feel like they’re right in the middle of the work environment, inviting more active participation and involvement.

Sidebar: Glass walls also double as a canvas—they’re perfect for throwing up post-it notes and even sketching down ideas. We’ve found that liquid chalk markers like these ones work best for legibility.

Something we’re working on this year is finding better ways to see and contribute to each others’ work as it evolves. Besides the odd over-the-shoulder glimpse, our team structure usually means we don’t have insight into other projects until the final reveal. Having an automatic way to stream WIP from tools like Basecamp to displays around the office might be an interesting thing to try.

Posture

Another thing that makes a big difference in collaborative dynamics is physical posture. For example, people tend to operate in a critical mode when seated vs. more active postures. I’ve noticed that the lack of seating around a nearby whiteboard area helps to foster engagement and keeps meetings lively and centred on co-creation.

I’ve even started to use this area for client reviews and working sessions. Breaking out of the boardroom is a great way to get everyone’s head in the game, and makes for a more agile and lean workflow.

Flexibility

Although we had some ideas for how to design collaborative affordances into the office layout, we’ve found that the ability to modify and use the space in ways we hadn’t envisioned has been just as important. Whiteboard-everything makes the entire office into a creative commons and means that pop-up work areas can happen all over the place. And it wasn’t long before folks started pulling furniture into different places to make these areas more useful and productive.

In retrospect, this ability to manipulate the space has been really important, and something that we will try to facilitate more in the future. Tools like drafting dots, giant sticky pads and other portable surfaces are beginning to come into greater demand.

Sidebar: One of the main things that’s made our Labs group successful is carving out dedicated space (not just time or resources) for them to own and customize. “Going into the lab” to work on a labs experiment—something creative associates have the opportunity to do throughout the year—becomes a tangible experience.

Conclusion

One of the things we value and embrace at Teehan+Lax is constant evolution—and the environment we work within is no exception. We’re very lucky to have such a great space to begin with (conceived of and brought to life by Roy Banse Design), but are also stoked about the possibilities we’ve yet to realize. If something in this post inspired you, or if you’ve got something that’s working great at your workplace, let us know!

Photo credit

We don’t normally cross-post Labs content, but this experiment is so cool we couldn’t resist. If you haven’t already, check out their latest (includes video) on the Touch Vision Interface. Combining Computer Vision and Augmented Reality Techniques, they’ve created a way for users to reach out and interact with their environment through a simple touch interface. We think there are some great possibilities here—let us know what you think!

(Also, don’t for get to follow the Labs Unit on Twitter @tllabs)

Sincerely,
Your best buddies @ T+L

Today, we are proud to launch a new online presence for Teehan+Lax!

Digital is changing, and so are we. We believe that 2011 will be a defining year for our company, and the new Teehanlax.com is a great way to mark the moment as we move ahead. Here’s a little bit about what you’ll find on our site:

Multi-screen from the start

From the get-go, we wanted to create a site that would work across a wide range of devices and screens sizes. We sketched out our mobile screens first, then worked up to tablets, standard, large and extra-large desktop resolutions. It was important to keep context in mind. For example, the mobile homepage simply displays contact information and a map. For layout and design, Matt and Andy worked together to design and develop a scaleable framework based on a 50-column grid. Design elements, styles and typography were all then built on top of this framework. You can get a sense of how this works by resizing your browser window.

Fresh new work

We finally get to share some of our latest and greatest work! Check out new case studies for Virgin Mobile, Bell, Weather Network and Logitech, to name a few. Travis, our resident WordPress expert, created an incredibly robust back-end solution which will let us content manage the site much more effectively. Stay tuned for more regular updates to this section as well as a new demo reel coming soon.

Dropping the new science

Labs now has a new home at teehanlax.com/labs. This is where you can see what we’re up to in the Lab and join the conversation. We are super stoked about our new labs initiative. If you haven’t heard about that yet, check out the announcement here. Don’t forget to follow the Labs crew on Twitter @tllabs.

Downloads

We love making stuff to share with our fellow design community, and now you can now find all of our biggest hits in one place. Check out teehanlax.com/downloads to see the latest and greatest in templates, stencils, and more.

Big thanks

Thanks so much to everyone who played a role in the project—especially to Matt, Andy and Travis who all dedicated late nights and weekends to pull this off in a relatively short period of time. And thanks to our fans, followers and commenters for continuing to track with us online (and IRL).

You like?

We’re also launching our Facebook page, which is where folks can get more of a behind-the-scenes look at who we are and what we’re getting up to.If you appreciate what we do, enjoy using some of our resources, or are just feeling friendly, give us a like and stay posted on what’s new at T+L!

What about a way to port your profile and social capital from one social network platform to another? How about the ability to selectively share something into multiple social networks in a contextually relevant way? I would like to suggest the extent to which we want/need these kinds of improvements speaks to the fundamental crudeness of our current social media tools and platforms.

Don’t get me wrong—I agree along with everyone else that the last few years have been truly seminal in terms of how we are able to socialize in the digital channel. Facebook and Twitter APIs have made a universal social graph possible, mobile technology has made access and connectivity to this graph ubiquitous and intensely personal, etc. What I’m saying is that the next few years have the potential to be every bit as revolutionary.

I believe that some of the fundamental challenges that underly current social network platforms will become more and more salient and lead to lots of (potentially disruptive) innovation in 2011 and 2012. What kinds of fundamental challenges? The kind that make it hard for tools like Facebook and Twitter to map onto how we’re actually wired to socialize.

The discussion is already well underway. For example, it has been noted that social expression has traditionally been private by default, public through effort. The social affordances of platforms like Facebook practically reverse that equation. It may be that this is a distortion of how we truly want to—and will be able to in the future—use social media to express ourselves and connect with others. A little while ago, Google’s Paul Adams pointed out that much of how Facebook works is based on the untrue assumption that all connections are homogeneous “friends.” An outworking of this fact is a lot of noise in our news feeds. Or take Twitter. It is based on the assumption that we actually want to hear regularly from people we follow. But this may not be true all the time: for example, there may be a range of social pressures that factor into our decision to follow someone. Thus, the need for something like a mute button. On a much more technical level, issues relating to universal access and potability are being discussed in depth.

I definitely don’t want to underestimate how far we’ve come, or technology’s ability to transform how we communicate and socialize; but I’m excited to see how users will adapt, and innovators will seize on opportunities to recreate our current social media landscape in the next few years.

In a recent essay, Andy Rutledge makes the claim that higher education UX design programs are effectively a scam. They are, Rutledge argues, largely irrelevant, misguided, even fraudulent in their fundamental approach—and therefore a waste of time and money.

Apparently, there’s not a lot of hope either. Towards the end of his piece, he declares that “universities and colleges have nothing of value to contribute in the context of UX design degree programs outside of the à la carte design and psychology courses they can offer.”

I take issue with this, what I believe to be pretty narrow, point of view. Here’s a list of academic disciplines that I believe are highly valuable to our field:

• Computer science
• Much of the behavioural & social sciences including social psychology, sociology, anthropology, even economics
• Research methods & statistics
• Graphic design
• Systems design engineering
• Business & marketing
• Cognitive science
• HCI
• Rhetoric & professional writing
• Applied linguistics & communications

UXD programs that incorporate these and other relevant disciplines into their curricula—in my experience—do add value.

At T+L, we have a pretty diverse range of backgrounds. Some folks went the school route, others didn’t. I think this diversity has led to a relatively well-balanced approach to our craft and discipline.

I understand that academics can become detached and affected. After my long stint in school, there was a lot I needed to unlearn. I also agree that there are a lot of flakey college and university programs who are selling empty promises to naive students and recruiters. And I’m not saying these guys shouldn’t be called out.

Developing a sound pedagogical approach for a relatively new, applied and constantly evolving discipline like UXD is of course challenging, but that doesn’t mean it’s impossible. In fact, I think it’s something we need: I mean, what other professional field that’s taken seriously in the world doesn’t have a body of scholarship behind it?

Rutledge’s claim that UXD simply isn’t teachable is definitely provocative, but it’s also fundamentally unfair and counterproductive. Rather than dismissing academics outright, UXD professionals should work with educators to create programs that are truly relevant, and which add value to our field.

Lately, there’s been some interesting discussion / debate about how meaningful or useful the term “user experience design” is.

Oliver Reichenstein over at iA kicked things off with a simple but provocative question: can user experience really be designed? His article got many, including the folks at Adaptive Path over on their blog, thinking and talking.

To outside spectators, this might seem like a strange thing to get worked up about. But the notion of experience design has been a central and highly operational term in our industry: people like us use it to capture and convey what it is we actually do. Nevertheless, at the end of the day it’s just an idea, a conceptual construct—and a relatively fluid and imprecise one at that.

This is probably why both iA and AP set out to define exactly what they mean by the term experience design. I found their discussion to be really stimulating—though a little hard to track with at times—so I’ve taken the liberty of distilling their comments down into something that hopefully makes it a little easier to compare and contrast:

iA says: experience design means more rigour. It has to do with how you design. It’s design practice made accountable to research, user feedback and measurable business results. It is practiced by seasoned professionals who are passionate about what they do and have earned their stripes through hard-fought experience.

AP says: experience design means more complexity. It has to do with what you design. It’s design practice that focuses on a broader, more multidimensional design space. It is practiced by multi-disciplinary teams who have been trained to apply design thinking systematically and holistically, across a variety of channels and modes.

I think many would agree with both of these lines of thought; that said, AP’s version of experience design is probably closer to where we’d land.

The second challenge that surfaces in this debate has less to do with semantics and more to do with pragmatics. It goes like this: practically speaking, isn’t “experience design” an unrealistic—perhaps even pretentious goal? After all, how I experience something is highly personalized and contextualized, and fundamentally non-deterministic.

I would argue that both iA and AP acquiesced a little too much here. Yes, user experiences are personal; but they’re not arbitrary. Yes, numerous contextual factors come into play; but these aren’t inscrutable. User experience design isn’t about being omniscient: it’s about being conscientious. This is essentially the position that both iA and AP take—but they almost frame it up as a concession. In fact, it’s actually quite a bold claim when you think about it.

The debate between technological determinism and social constructionism is sort of an old one, and has been largely resolved in Gibson’s model of affordances, popularized in the HCI world by Don Norman. (Norman’s also the guy who coined the term experience design, by the way. Check out this interview with AP’s Peter Merholz for more on his perspective.) Nowadays, we recognize that we can design affordances for more than mere usability: we can impact how we perceive something, what we remember about it, how we feel about it. In other words, we can truly craft affordances for experiences.

Recently, there’s been a lot of buzz in and around topics like persuasive design, behavioural economics and choice architecture. Books like Nudge and Drive, and people like Frog Design’s Robert Fabricant who stresses that behaviour is our medium are raising our collective consciousness about the potential for impact that accompanies the design of everything from communications to policy to products and services.

In the midst of all of this, we think it’d be a shame to give up on the idea of experience design. But building equity into this term will require more than a nuanced semantic approach. It will require us getting out there and building actual case studies (as AP and iA both have). If there’s one thing we can’t have too much of as an industry, it is experience design success stories. Projects where we’ve created and transformed more than just the interface, but also the nature of a products and services themselves, their underlying operations and systems, the business problems and outcomes, and yes, the experiences people have along the way.

Live documentation is any artifact we use to express design decisions we make along the way. It’s a malleable and active representation of what we’re creating. Live documentation evolves, grows, changes. It’s an extension of our short term working memory.

Dead documentation is any artifact we use to express the fact that we’ve spent a lot of time working on something. It’s a hard to change, static representation of stuff that has little to do with what we’re actually creating. Dead documentation sits in the project folder or on the shelf.

The trick is to do more of the former and less of the latter.

Imagine that you were commissioning the development of a new home for you and your family. What would you look for in a bid from a contractor? Would you be satisfied with one option, one price? A quote that lays out averaged costs in the most generic of terms? Boiler plate descriptions of process and procedures that fail to address your specific needs and desires?

Buying a Web site (or any user experience) design shouldn’t feel like this—and yet, consider how we often pitch, scope and quote on projects.

We put together a statement of work that estimates the costs on an “average per-square-foot” basis (e.g. number of templates). We talk about us: our process, our people, our proven track record. If we’re placing a fixed bid, we typically propose one option and one price that studiously and reflexively attempts to cover off everything in the brief.

A couple of weeks ago, Jon posted up some thoughts on why we’re switching from costs-plus to a value-based pricing model. This generated a very lively discussion, which—if I were to summarize it—really boiled down to a sentiment of “that’s great, but how do we do this?”

Since then, we’ve experimented with a number of pricing options and strategies. I’d like to share one that we think shows a lot of promise.

A tiered model for value-based pricing

A tiered model lays out multiple options at different price points and empowers purchasers to make better, more informed decisions that feel less arbitrary. I wish I had a simpler name for it, because it really is a very standard and straight-forward way to price things out. Here’s a template that we developed for a recent client:

Each of these options also got a one-pager that provided more detail. Here’s why we think this approach works better than a more traditional costs-plus estimate:

Measured response

Very rarely are you presented with a purchasing decision where there’s one option and one price. In fact, if you were, I bet you’d have a hard time judging whether or not the price was worth it. We’re not wired to make absolute evaluations in a vacuum. We need points of reference to help set expectations, anchor and compare.

Laying out options gives clients a clear way to compare, contrast and ultimately be more intentional about who they decide to award their business to and why.

What are we actually selling?

Each fixed-bid option focuses on outcomes rather than costs. Clients don’t want to buy 20-30 templates. They do want to buy a digital experience that delights customers and gives them a competitive edge. It’s up to us to understand how this maps onto specific requirements and outcomes, and reflect the perceived value of those outcomes in our pricing. Clients need to have confidence in us and understand how we will execute the project. But ultimately, they care more about how they can derive value from the end result.

Meaningful choice

Rather than pandering to a brief that asks for everything at once, multiple options let us de-couple conflicting requirements (e.g. fast delivery time and lots of features). This means that from the start, we’re setting ourselves and our clients up for success.

We want each option to have a purpose and represent a viable option for the client. We can state exactly what problems we’re going to solve and what trade-offs these solutions will entail. For example, in this case we proposed one option that optimized time-to-market, a second that set specific parameters around certain kinds of innovative features and functionality, and a third no-holds-barred, multi-channel approach.

Final thoughts

The American philosopher John Dewey once said that “a problem well-defined is a problem half-solved.” The goal here is to creatively and conscientiously define problems well, right from the outset, and empower clients to make purposeful choices about what they really want. One thing I didn’t expect to get out of this process was that it was actually fun. Quoting and scoping projects doesn’t have to be a dry, automatic process. It can and we believe should be part of the value you bring to the project.