Further ruminations on the specifics of “deep thought” paradigms in a workspace

Weird the things which cause a rekindling of former thoughts. In a recent tweet, having nothing to do with the topic of interfaces or work, there was a spark rekindling the previous discussion of deep thought UI paradigms. How does that post about the placement of a connected speaker spark such a thought? It has to do with what we see about our spaces in their ability to be conductive to particular kinds of work. When looked at from that perspective, such a graphic doesn’t merely show what we interact with, but how we have designed our spaces around particular interactions.

To recap, here’s where we lent some shape to the paradigm of deep thought:

Deep work is transactional primarily for the individual doing it, not for the entities the individual is supporting.

Deep work UI paradigm (thoughts based around my iOS-as-workstation self): - goals: immersion, flow, focus - analogy: Etch-A-Sketch controls, not Photoshop’s - behaviors: liberty inside frame (create, cut, mix/remix, etc), structured export to outside (validate, handoff, etc.)

In the space of “deep thought” we often hear about unbroken states of work. But, what else is there? What are these other characteristics? Not because they can be measured, but becuae they do sit in a space to be enjoyed. A space to be productive.

Deep thought can probably then be affixed to an acknowledgement of a specific shape of iteration. It might be a framework initially, but then builds/falls into a skeleton where building certain frames of activity are able to blossom. Deep thought as a room? The den, contemplative space, or work-corner. If in this space, the intentionality drives the productity and outcomes.

Going down this line probably describes why open office concepts are so disruptive, but why cafes might not be. The intentionality of the space for collaboration shapes it one way. The intentionality for production shapes it another way. The way we setup our workspace has to be responsive to the output, but probably even more to the production. This nuance might be what is missed, probably because the value in the process is no longer a part of what makes for present economic conversations.